CAVC Case 21-5985: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2021-06-11 · 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
PTSDPsychiatricBackCervicalSleep ApneaTDIUArthritisRadiculopathyHypertension
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 DateReopenIncreased RatingPTSDSleep Apnea
Why It Was Decided This Way
First,the Board determined that the December 2011 rating decision that denied entitlement to benefits for bilateral flat feet was final because the appellant had not appealed it.
The Board then found that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen that claim.
Next,the Board found no evidence that the appellant's hypertension was incurred in or caused by service.
Finally,the Board determined that the appellant was not entitled to a disability rating in excess of 40%for his back disability because the evidence did not reflect unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine at any time during the appeal, as required under the rating schedule for the 5 next higher rating of 50%.
Parties'Arguments The appellant argues first that the Board erred in finding that the May 2012 VA spine examination report did not relate to his flat feet and was therefore immaterial to that claim and did not support reconsideration,pursuant to 38 C.
Alternatively,the appellant contends that the Board failed to address why the May 2012 VA examination report � reflecting that he had been crawling, climbing,and flipping during service � did not constitute material evidence.
Regarding hypertension,the appellant asserts that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for denying his claim and failed to consider a theory of secondary service connection,which he contends was reasonably raised by the record.
Finally,he asserts that the Board erred in denying entitlement to a compensable disability rating for his service-connected back scar without first advising him that the matter was on appeal and providing him the opportunity to address it.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
No Nexus|Not New Material
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 →