CAVC Case 22-4105: Prostate
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2021-07-30 · MOORMAN
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
In the March 2022 decision here on appeal,the Board found that the October 2021 decision provided an incomplete discussion of the April 2021 VA medical opinion and failed to discuss research,which was constructively of record,related to the risk of asbestos exposure,and the Board therefore vacated its October 2021 decision.
The Board then found that the evidence persuasively weighs against finding that the [v]eteran's diagnosis of prostate cancer began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury,event, or disease, and the Board denied the appellant.
ANALYSIS Establishing that a disability is service connected for purposes of entitlement to VA disability compensation generally requires medical or,in certain circumstances,lay evidence of (1)a current disability,(2)an incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service, and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service injury or disease and the current disability.
Whether the record establishes entitlement to service connection is a finding of fact,which 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 4 with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
In every decision,the Board must provide a statement of the reasons or bases for its determination 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.
To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence,account for the evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide the reasons for rejecting any material evidence favorable to the claimant.
The appellant argues that reversal is warranted because the Board clearly erred in finding that the benefit of the doubt does not apply.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Duty To Assist
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 →