CAVC Case 21-2787: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2021-02-26 · SCHOELEN
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
Back ConditionService ConnectionReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
Because the Board's determination that the criteria for entitlement to service connection for a back disability have not been met is not clearly erroneous and because the Board supported its February 2021 decision with adequate reasons or bases,the Court will affirm the Board's decision.
In September 2012,the RO denied the claim because it found that the evidence submitted by the appellant was not new and material,and thus insufficient to reopen the final June 1971 denial.
In October 2017,the Board found that the November 2016 VA examiner had failed to opine on whether the appellant's back condition was aggravated by an in-service injury or event.
In August 2018,the Board found that the January 2018 VA examiner had failed to address the appellant's lay statement that he [aggravated his back injury]while carrying 5-foot-tall, 100-pound bottles up three flights of stairs, and the Board remanded the issue of service connection for a back condition for a third time.
In October 2019,the Board found that the VA examiner had not followed its specific instructions to discuss the appellant's lay statements and remanded the issue of service connection for a back condition for an addendum opinion.
The Board noted the initial April 1971 claim,the June 1971 rating decision,the June 2007 claim to reopen, and the September 2012 rating decision.
The Board found the May 2020 private medical opinion less probative because it was based on an inaccurate premise � that the appellant was found to have vertebral fractures when seen by a chiropractor after service.
The appellant argues that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its decision and to apply the benefit of the doubt, because the medical evidence is at least at equipoise.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|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 →