CAVC Case 22-5789: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2022-09-22 · 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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricHeart
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 ConnectionReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
Nonetheless, the Board denied the claim,finding that the appellant did not become disabled due to an acquired psychiatric disorder during ACDUTRA.
In the September 2022 decision,the Board denied entitlement to disability compensation for an acquired psychiatric disorder,including bipolar disorder,anxiety,and depression.
Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the record reasonably raised the issue of whether VA satisfied its duty to assist and that the Board erred by failing to address whether attempts were made to obtain potentially outstanding SMRs,and if not,why no further attempts were necessary.
He further asserts that the Board provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases for finding that VA had no duty to provide him with a medical examination because the Board failed to apply the four-part test established in McLendon v.
Under the duty to assist, [t]he Secretary shall make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim for a benefit.
Additionally,to satisfy the duty to assist,VA must provide a medical examination where there is competent evidence that the claimant has a current disability, or persistent or recurrent symptoms of disability, and the evidence indicates that the disability or symptoms may be associated with the claimant's active military,naval,air, or space service, but there is insufficient medical evidence for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim.
The third McLendon element requires only that the evidence 'indicates'that there ' may 'be a nexus between the [first]two [elements].
The Board's determination of whether a claimant has the requisite status as a veteran and whether the Secretary has fulfilled his duty to assist generally are findings of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
No Nexus|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam|No Current Disability
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 →