CAVC Case 22-3242: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2022-05-24 · 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

per month ·  per year, tax-free

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)
RatingMonthly (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
See your full claim picture — free
Outcome
Affirmed
Decision Date
2022-05-24
Judge
SCHOELEN
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricTDIUErectile Dysfunction

Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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

SMCService ConnectionTDIUPTSD

Why It Was Decided This Way

In a March 2017 VA examination, the examiner opined that, [d]ue to significant concerns regarding the credibility of [the appellant's]self-reported psychological symptoms,this examiner cannot ethically provide a diagnosis at this time.

The examiner explained that when the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the appellant's report is not credible,providing a diagnosis would violate the mental health professional's code of ethics,and determining the type and severity of the appellant's mental health condition would amount to mere speculation.

In a November 2021 VA examination,an examiner opined that the appellant's erectile dysfunction was at least as likely as not related to his PTSD,to include the PTSD medications, R.

For his bladder condition,a November 2021 VA examiner opined that the condition was less likely than not related to his PTSD,to include as due to medication,was not aggravated by his PTSD or medication for PTSD,and did not preexist service.

The Board denied entitlement to service connection for bladder dysfunction and a disability rating in excess of 70% for the entire appeal period for PTSD.

As for the appellant's bladder condition,the Board found the November 2021 VA examination probative,reviewing its conclusions that it was less likely than not that the appellant's bladder condition related to his PTSD,to include his psychiatric medications.

The Board then noted that there was no equally probative opinion supporting an association to the appellant's PTSD and explained that the appellant was not competent to provide a nexus opinion because that issue is medically complex,requiring an opinion based on knowledge of multiple organ systems in the body and the possible chemical effects of medication.

The Board noted that because the appellant received consistent treatment during the period on appeal,the clinicians were able to observe the appellant during numerous mental status examinations in VA mental health treatment records.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownBankhead v. ShulkinBuckley v. WestCaluza v. BrownClaudio v. ShinsekiCoker v. PeakeDavidson v. ShinsekiDe Perez v. DerwinskiDeloach v. ShinsekiGabrielson v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiHernandez v. StarbuckHyder v. DerwinskiMauerhan v. PrincipiMedrano v. ShinsekiOwens v. BrownRobinson v. PeakeRobinson v. ShinsekiRodriguez v. PeakeSchafrath v. DerwinskiSee Allen v. BrownSee Coker v. NicholsonSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Kern v. BrownSee Ledford v. WestSee Medrano v. NicholsonSee Washington v. NicholsonShedden v. Principi

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|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 →
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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.

VetAid is a free veterans claims tool, not a VA-accredited representative — it does not file anything with VA for you, and it works alongside your accredited VSO, claims agent or attorney. About VetAid