CAVC Case 21-0226: Skin
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2023-04-17 · MEREDITH
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 DateReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
In the November 2020 decision on appeal,the Board denied entitlement to an effective date prior to September 5,2018,for the award of benefits for CAD.
The Board determined that the Blue Water Act's exception to the general rules for effective dates did not apply because the appellant's original claim had been denied not on the basis that he did not have confirmed service in Vietnam ,but on the basis that the evidence of record did not show that he had a current disability, and because the denial was not based on a prior more restrictive definition of service in the Republic of Vietnam ,.
The Board also acknowledged that the record shows that the appellant had CAD as early as 1991, but the Board found that the private treatment records showing that disability were not associated with the claims file until after the appellant filed his supplemental claim in September 2019.
Although the Board acknowledged that the record showed that the appellant had a heart disability as early as 1991, the Board determined that the private treatment records reflecting that disability were not associated with the claims file until after the appellant filed his supplemental claim in September 2019.
Accordingly,the Board found that the appellant was entitled to an effective date 1 year prior to the date of his claim,which is his currently assigned effective date, but no earlier.
He contends that this reflects three bases for the RO's denial � the absence of an in-service event,a current disability,and nexus to service.
The appellant 8 argues that this is favorable evidence that the Board did not address and that it patently undermines the Board's reasons or bases for finding that the effective date exceptions in the Blue Water Act do not apply here.
He contends that the appellant's argument overlooks the RO's finding of no current disability and is ultimately a disagreement with the Board's weighing of the evidence.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
No Nexus|Duty To Assist|No Current Disability
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 →