CAVC Case 22-6158: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2025-08-14 · ALLEN
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
PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackCervicalHipTDIUEyeArthritis
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 ConnectionTDIUIncreased RatingPTSDHip Condition
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant's assertion that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision denying his claims.
As particularly relevant to this appeal,the Board noted that the Board member who was rendering the decision was not the same Board member who had conducted the 2018 hearing.
46 They contend that the Board member who presides over a hearing evaluates credibility,clarifies factual ambiguities,and focuses testimony on key legal and 38 Id .
49 Appellants ultimately contend that the Board�s reliance on Frantzis was misplaced because that decision did not address whether fair process or due process require the same Board member to adjudicate a claim after conducting a hearing.
The appellant's appeal to include a contention that the Board failed to fulfill its duty to fully explain the issues and suggest the submission of potentially overlooked advantageous evidence during the Board hearing.
The appellant also contends that the Board failed to suggest advantageous evidence that supported his testimony regarding the impact of his PTSD symptoms, particularly his documented anger issues,social withdrawal,and memory impairments,in determining that he did not meet the criteria for an increased rating or TDIU.
The appellant's alternative argument that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for denying his claims.
Brown ,in which the Court held that before the [Board]relies , in rendering a decision on a claim,on any evidence developed or obtained by it subsequent to the issuance of the most recent SOC or SSOC with respect to such claim , the [Board] must provide a claimant with reasonable notice of such evidence and of the reliance proposed to be placed on it,and a reasonable opportunity for the claimant to respond to it.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Non Denial Outcome
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 →