CAVC Case 21-3087: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2021-01-19 · 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
DepressionBackKneeAnkleTDIUArthritis
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 ConnectionEffective DateReopenKnee ConditionTDIU
Why It Was Decided This Way
The matter 3 returned to the Board in April 2009,and the Board denied the appellant's claim for benefits for a low back disability.
The Board also determined that the appellant had submitted new and material evidence and therefore reopened the claim for benefits for a low back disability and remanded the claim for further development.
5 In the January 2021 decision on appeal, the Board denied entitlement to benefits for a low back disability and to an effective date earlier than January 13,2016,for TDIU.
He next argues that the Board erred in finding him not credible with respect to the circumstances surrounding his claimed back injury because the Board relied on the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence, id.
The appellant also briefly asserts that the Board erred in relying on his Board hearing testimony to discredit him because the Board fail[ed]to consider the fact that [he]used a translator during the hearing and there was a language barrier.
Turning to the issue of TDIU,the appellant asserts that the Board failed to consider his complete disability picture, instead of focusing on whether each of his service-connected disabilities,individually,resulted in unemployability.
Next,the appellant argues that the Board erred by finding that a non-service-connected disability � his low back condition � was responsible for his unemployability because the Board failed to consider whether his service-connected conditions also rendered him unemployable during the period in question.
In that regard,the 6 Secretary agrees that the Board failed to address the combined effects of the appellant's service- connected disabilities and overlooked relevant evidence, specifically the October 2008 VA examination report and the May 2010 VA examination report.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against
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 →