CAVC Case 21-0347: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2020-09-29 · MOORMAN
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
BackCervicalShoulderAnkleArthritisRadiculopathy
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
Back ConditionService Connection
Why It Was Decided This Way
The examiner is notified that findings of not due to, not caused by, and not related to are insufficient to address the question of aggravation.
In the September 29,2020,decision on appeal,the Board denied service connection for left arm radiculopathy.
The Board determined that service connection on a direct basis was not warranted because neither the appellant.
5 The 5 Specifically,the Board explained that,in December 2018,it had found the following medical evidence to be inadequate for the following reasons:(1)the October 2004 VA examiner did not address whether the appellant.
e for the opinion that 4 Board further explained that it had remanded the matter for an adequate VA nexus opinion,which was obtained in September 2019.
The appellant was not medically competent to provide a nexus opinion.
The RO and the Board denied service connection for bilateral pes planus.
The appellant's bilateral pes planus (claimed as a right foot condition) was less likely than not related to an in-service event or injury.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
No Nexus|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam
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 →