CAVC Case 21-1135: Psychiatric

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2021-01-07 · 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

Rating Married Children

per month · per year, tax-free

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

See your full claim picture — free

Outcome

Reversed

Decision Date

2021-01-07

Judge

PIETSCH, Judge

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

Psychiatric Cervical Knee Shoulder Ankle Headache GI Arthritis Radiculopathy Fibromyalgia

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionReopen

Why It Was Decided This Way

The Board noted that the August 2019 examiner considered the [v]eteran's contentions that he injured his neck while in service and that he still had symptoms.

But the Board denied service connection for a right rotator cuff disability,relying on the April 2015 examiner's opinion that the right shoulder disability was a normal age-related finding and that medical literature did not support one shoulder causing pathology in another shoulder.

The Board found that the most probative evidence did not indicate that his neck disability or cervical radiculopathy were incurred in service or related to his service-connected disabilities.

The Board found the veteran competent to report his symptoms,but not competent to opine on the nature and etiology of his medical conditions.

The Board found the VA examinations adequate because the examiners saw the Veteran in person,reviewed his file, performed all required testing,and offered opinions supported by explanations.

The appellant argues that the Board erred in relying on an inadequate April 2019 right shoulder examination because the examiner did not opine on whether his right rotator cuff disability was aggravated by his service-connected left shoulder disability.

The appellant argues that the Board erred in relying on an inadequate April 2019 headaches examination because the examiner's findings were internally inconsistent and the examiner noted his headache complaints but failed to explain why he did not have a headache disability.

Concerning IBS,he argues that the Board erred in relying on an inadequate April 2019 intestinal conditions examination because the examiner failed to explain why he did not have a current diagnosis of an intestinal condition.

Authorities Cited

Acevedo v. ShinsekiAllday v. BrownAmin v. ShinsekiArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownCarbino v. GoberCarbino v. WestDeloach v. ShinsekiFrankel v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGutierrez v. PrincipiHenderson v. WestLendon v. NicholsonMedrano v. ShinsekiMiller v. WilkieMonzingo v. ShinsekiSee Best v. PrincipiSee Harris v. DerwinskiSee Locklear v. NicholsonSee Medrano v. NicholsonSee Pederson v. McSee Saunders v. WilkieSee Simmons v. WilkieSee Tucker v. WestShinseki v. SandersStefl v. NicholsonVan Valkenburg v. ShinsekiWalker v. Shinseki

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|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 →