CAVC Case 23-0076: Psychiatric
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2022-10-25 · 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
PsychiatricBackCervicalHeartEye
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 Condition
Why It Was Decided This Way
In September 2015,the appellant underwent VA examinations for his back and neck;the examiner provided negative nexus opinions,noting in part that the record shows that the appellant injured his wrist after a fall, not in a motor vehicle accident, and that there was no record of any in-service back or neck injury.
The Board denied entitlement to disability compensation for back and neck conditions in an April 1,2020,decision,finding the appellant's report that he sustained back and neck injuries in service less credible than the contemporaneous service records.
At a minimum,the Board found that one would expect him to complain of neck or back pain at some point,noting that the appellant went to eight follow-up appointments for his wrist,yet he did not report any back or neck pain,and his separation medical examination report indicated a normal musculoskeletal system.
The Court determined that the Board failed to address favorable evidence, including the appellant's explanation for why he did not report a motor vehicle accident or injuries to his back and neck during service.
Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board failed to lay a foundation for treating the absence of evidence of a motor vehicle accident in his service records as substantive negative evidence;he avers that silence in the record actually supports [his] explanation:that [the servicemembers involved]covered up that there was an accident,[the corpsman]did not address all of his injuries except the most obvious,and [they]made up a story that he fell to explain his broken wrist.
He next contends that the Board failed to consider pertinent evidence when it found that his mother's December 2013 letter and the June 20,1969, calendar entry were not credible.
The appellant further argues that the Board failed to substantially comply with the Court's February 2022 remand directives, which required the Board to consider his reasons for not reporting the motor vehicle accident.
He maintains that the Board erred in dismissing the opinion because the physician relied on the appellant's statements;overlooked that the private physician related the appellant's disabilities to multiple in-service injuries;and failed to consider whether his work in the paint and body shop caused his disabilities.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Inadequate Exam
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 →