CAVC Case 22-7547: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2022-11-29 · 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
BackCervicalHearing LossTinnitusTDIUHypertension
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
SMCBack ConditionService ConnectionIncreased RatingHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
There must be a nexus of auditory damage to relate current hearing loss to military noise and not another etiology.
In the November 2022 decision on appeal,the Board denied disability compensation for tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss and denied a compensable rating for ureterolithiasis.
Next,the appellant maintains that the Board erred when it rejected [his] credibility, finding that he should have reported hearing loss and tinnitus in service if he was experiencing problems.
Additionally,he notes that [t]he Board's rationale for rejecting [his]credibility also completely rejects the theory of delayed onset,as proffered by the private examiner.
4 As for his ureterolithiasis disability rating,the appellant posits that the Board erred in finding that his bloody urine and flank pain had been attributed to a different medical condition, did not explain why a new medical examination was not warranted to address the source of his bloody urine and pain,and did not define what would constitute an occasional attack of colic under Diagnostic Code 7509.
The appellant acknowledges that the Board found that he 'only provides speculation that the pain .
He also recognizes that a VA examination had been scheduled and then canceled,and he suggests that the Board failed to analyze this evidence or why it did not consider remanding for a new examination.
condition,and its associated challenges ;the appellant does not contend that he has had kidney stones since 2010;and he cannot show a predecisional duty to assist error in VA failing to obtain another examination given that his wife canceled the examination that VA had scheduled.
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 →