CAVC Case 22-3869: GI
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2022-06-16 · 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
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
Service Connection
Why It Was Decided This Way
at 2487-88, the Board member explained that the appellant was missing evidence of a nexus,R.
After the appellant's representative reiterated that the appellant had been treated continuously for 52 years,the Board member elaborated: 2 [W]e're still going to need the nexus .
After VA obtained a negative medical nexus opinion,R.
The nurse practitioner opined that all these findings were decades post[]service and unrelated to the single episode of indigestion in 1965 and acute [gastroenteritis]in 1967, and she concluded that a nexus had not been established.
On June 16,2022,the Board denied entitlement to disability compensation for acid reflux, a hiatal hernia,and a stomach condition,including diverticulitis.
Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board erred by requiring medical evidence to corroborate his lay statements of continuous symptoms since service,providing inadequate reasons or bases for finding his lay testimony incredible,and relying on inadequate medical opinions.
Regarding his lay statements,the appellant contends that the Board erred when it found him incredible solely because his testimony does not constitute medical evidence and was not corroborated by contemporaneous medical evidence of record.
As for the January 2022 medical opinions,the appellant contends that they are based on an inaccurate premise because the nurse practitioner failed to consider his in-service diagnosis of gastroenteritis.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|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 →