CAVC Case 21-0372: Knee
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2020-10-07 · MEREDITH, 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
KneeHearing LossTinnitusShoulderHipAnkleHeartTDIURadiculopathyProstate
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 ConnectionTDIUHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
Also,in denying a higher rating for coronary artery disease,the Board noted that the appellant's reporting of his symptoms is credible.
On October 7,2020, the Board denied entitlement to TDIU for the period prior to January 12,2017.
ANALYSIS The appellant maintains that the Board erred in discounting the 2017 vocational assessment and in finding that he is capable of sedentary employment.
The Board then noted that the vocational expert relied on specific evidence to support his conclusion, but the Board found that the relied-on evidence as well as other evidence of record was inconsistent with the vocational expert's opinion.
Specifically,the Board noted that the vocational expert referenced the appellant's statements recorded in the January 2010 VA examination report � that he had fatigue,shortness of breath,and problems with balance and stumbling after walking 100 to 200 yards;that the symptoms occurred almost daily;and that they would last until he was able to rest for 1 to 2 hours.
The Board concluded, however,that the expert failed to discuss the 2011 VA examiner's opinion that the appellant's cardiac condition had mild effects on his usual occupation and daily activities,that the appellant had achieved maximal exercise tolerance testing, and that the appellant's reported symptoms were subjective factors.
Moreover,the Board noted that a December 2010 VA examiner had opined that there was no impact or mild impact on the appellant's ability to work,and that the VA examiners had conducted 7 in-person examinations,whereas the vocational expert had conducted a telephone interview.
Additionally,the Board noted that,although the vocational expert had referenced the February 2011 DBQ reflecting that the appellant tires easily,has no reserve energy,and has difficulty simply completing his activities of daily living,that 2011 physician did not conclude that the [appellant]was unable to maintain any type of gainful employment.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility
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 →