CAVC Case 20-5236: Headache
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2022-06-21 · ALLEN
This is a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims — the federal court that reviews Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions, one level above the Board. Court decisions can vacate, reverse, or affirm what the Board did.
Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.
Dependent add-ons start at a 30% rating. Child-only and dependent-parent rates: see the full 2026 pay chart.
2026 base rates, all ratings (veteran alone)
| Rating | Monthly (2026, incl. 2.8% COLA) |
|---|---|
| 10% | $180.42 |
| 20% | $356.66 |
| 30% | $552.47 |
| 40% | $795.84 |
| 50% | $1,132.90 |
| 60% | $1,435.02 |
| 70% | $1,808.45 |
| 80% | $2,102.15 |
| 90% | $2,362.30 |
| 100% | $3,938.58 |
Conditions Claimed
Referral disclosure: VetAid earns a referral fee if you become a paying REE Medical client through this link — it helps keep this site free. REE Medical provides paid medical evidence; it is not a law firm, VSO, or claims agent, and VetAid has not independently verified its services. VSOs and VA-accredited representatives will help you file your claim at no cost, and no one can guarantee a rating increase.
Issues on Appeal
Service ConnectionEffective DateDic
Why It Was Decided This Way
23 The decision acknowledged the testimony that the severity of [appellant's]headaches [have]been characteristic of prostrating attacks since 2009, but the Board found that the evidence does not show that [appellant's] headaches were productive of prostrating attacks .
24 The Board noted appellant's VA treatment records and his April 2014 examination that indicated that his headaches were of less severity and contemporaneously documented his symptoms and the severity of his headaches.
25 Accordingly,the Board determined that the lay assertions of prostrating attacks were outweighed by other record evidence.
28 Appellant further argues that the Board failed to consider favorable evidence when it determined that appellant's headaches were not productive of prostrating attacks.
Specifically,he asserts that the Board failed to adequately discuss his and his wife's testimony about the onset, worsening,and prostrating nature of his headaches.
Appellant focuses his argument on appeal principally on the contention that the Board erred because the Board member who conducted his AMA hearing did not also render the decision on his appeal.
However,appellant also asserts that the Board erred when it denied him a higher disability rating because the Board did not consider statements about his prostrating headaches that both he and his wife made during the May 2019 Board hearing.
89 He also reframes that argument by maintaining that the Board did not adequately explain why it failed to consider those statements.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Non Denial Outcome
Find Similar Decisions for Your Claim
VetAid's analyzer maps your claim against thousands of real Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions like this one — surfacing the exact case law that supports your arguments.
Run my claim through VetAid →