CAVC Case 20-7178: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2020-06-25 · PIETSCH, Judge
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
PTSDAnxietyPsychiatricTinnitusHeartTDIU
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
SMCService ConnectionEffective DateTDIUIncreased RatingHearing LossPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
In the June 2020 decision on appeal,the Board denied an initial disability rating greater than 50%for PTSD and an effective date earlier than November 16,2012,for the award of SMC(s).
3 Regarding SMC(s),the Board concluded that an effective date earlier than November 16,2012,was not warranted because it found that [name redacted].
ANALYSIS The Court reviews the Board's findings of fact, including the Board's determinations concerning the probative value of the evidence, under the clearly erroneous standard of review.
To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, 3 See generally Castellano v.
[name redacted] argues that,as a matter of law,the Court should reverse the Board's denials because the Board did not apply the benefit of the doubt standard under 38 U.
[name redacted] asks the Court to determine whether the Board's reliance on the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof on both of these issue[s]is contrary,as a matter of law,to the only standard of proof applicable to adjudications for VA benefits and that the only applicable standard of proof is the benefit of the doubt standard.
The benefit of the doubt rule under subsection 5107(b)states that, [w]hen there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.
102 to determine whether the benefit of the doubt rule can be applied in cases in which the Board finds that a preponderance of the evidence is against the 4 The Court notes that the parties filed their briefs in the instant appeal,before the Federal Circuit withdrew its June 3,2021,decision in Lynch v.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Preponderance Against
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 →