CAVC Case 22-4895: Anxiety
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2022-07-11 · 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
AnxietyPsychiatricBackKneeHearing LossTinnitusGITDIUArthritisRadiculopathy
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 ConditionService ConnectionTDIUHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
A VA examiner in October 2013 concluded that the appellant's adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood was less likely than not related to service.
The Board acknowledged the September 2019 private physician's favorable nexus opinion but found that the physician had not provided adequate rationale for his conclusions.
The Board determined that the appellant's remaining claims and his request for TDIU were inextricably intertwined with his claim for benefits for a back disability,and therefore the Board remanded those matters as well.
Accordingly,the examiner concluded, a nexus exists between the primary pain condition and the secondary mental health condition.
She concluded,however,that the appellant's conditions were less likely than not related to his reported falls from a bunk bed in service, and she provided the following explanation: [The appellant]was in the Air Force from January 1977 [to]Jan[uary]1978.
In December 2021,the Board remanded the appellant's claims,finding that,although the October 2020 VA examiner had provided a negative nexus opinion,her rationale relied on the fact that there was no spinal condition diagnosed during the [appellant's]military service, and [a]medical examiner 'cannot rely on the absence of medical records corroborating that injury to conclude that there is no relationship between the appellant's current disability and his military service.
Turning to his claim for benefits for an acquired psychiatric disability,the appellant contends that the Board either failed to consider direct service connection or failed to adequately explain why direct service connection was not warranted.
Law 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)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.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|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 →