CAVC Case 21-3036: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2021-02-02 · 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
BackCervicalKneeHearing LossTinnitusAnkleHeadacheTDIUArthritisRadiculopathy
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
SMCBack ConditionService ConnectionEffective DateTDIUHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
On February 2,2021,the Board denied a rating in excess of 20%for the back disability, including a separate rating for left and right lower extremity radiculopathy prior to August 15, 2016,pursuant to Note 1 of the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, and a rating in excess of 10%each for the lower extremity radiculopathy disabilities for the period from August 15,2016,to February 6, 2020.
Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that,with respect to the rating for his lower back conditions,the Board failed to consider whether functional loss under 38 C.
45 warranted a higher rating and that the Board failed to consider evidence that he was unable to perform repetitive range of motion testing in February 2017 or any range of motion testing in February 2020.
Next,the appellant avers that the Board erred in denying an effective date prior to August 2016 for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy because the Board failed to discuss a 2004 diagnosis of sciatica and evidence of positive straight leg tests, and that the Board mischaracterized the September 2005 VA examiner's findings.
Last,regarding the radiculopathy ratings,the appellant asserts that the Board failed to discuss his lay statements describing severe radiculopathy symptoms and that the Board failed to reconcile the February and April 2017 VA examiners'inconsistent findings as to the severity of the radiculopathy.
The Board's determination of the proper disability rating is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
As with any material issue of fact or law,the Board must provide a statement of reasons or bases that is adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis 8 for the Board's decision,as well as to facilitate review in this Court.
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 →