CAVC Case 22-3078: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2022-04-20 · 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
BackCervicalHearing LossAnkleRadiculopathy
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 ConditionEffective DateIncreased RatingHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
On appeal,the appellant filed an informal brief in which he argued that the Board provided inadequate reasons,relied on inadequate examination reports,failed to ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist,and did not afford him the benefit of the doubt.
ord as a whole,relied on inadequate VA 3 examination reports,failed to ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist,and misapplied the rating schedule.
With respect to the proper initial rating for a lumbar strain,the appellant maintains that a claim for benefits for muscle spasms remains pending because the Board failed to adjudicate the entire claim;the Board also relied on inadequate VA examination reports,disregarded his lay testimony,overlooked favorable evidence, and reversed a prior credibility determination without notifying him that the issue was being reconsidered.
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 for the Board's decision,as well as to facilitate review in this Court.
As part of its statement of reasons or bases,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the material evidence,account for the evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.
Board Decision The Board first made the following findings regarding VA's duty to assist: [T]he [appellant]offered valid bases for a series of new VA examinations during his November 2018 hearing.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|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 →