CAVC Case 23-0608: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2022-12-12 · 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
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 ConnectionTDIUIncreased RatingPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
Parties'Arguments The appellant first argues that the Board failed to ensure that VA satisfied its predecisional duty to assist him because VA did not provide a medical examination to assess the residuals of his service-connected bladder cancer.
Alternatively,he asserts that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for its implicit conclusion that VA satisfied its duty to assist, id.
Again,in the alternative,the appellant argues that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its implicit conclusion that the Board member complied with his duties under 3.
The Board noted that the rating criteria for renal dysfunction had changed during the pendency of the appeal,but because the [appellant]does not exhibit any renal dysfunction, his condition had been rated on the basis of voiding dysfunction, which the Board explained is categorized as urine leakage,urine frequency,or obstructed voiding.
In discussing renal dysfunction,the Board found that the [appellant's]medical records do not reflect any kidney disease or dysfunction, noting that the Board member who conducted the August 2022 hearing attempted to elicit information responsive to such evaluation under the pre- November 2021 rating criteria.
The Board concluded that [t]here is no evidence that [the appellant's]hypertension or atrial fibrillation is related to kidney disease,as there is no evidence of kidney disease, and that [t]he general medical journal articles [the appellant submitted].
Further,the Board found that, [t]o the extent the [appellant's] representative intended the[articles]to support a secondary service connection claim,such matters are not before the Board.
In light of that discussion,the Board concluded that voiding dysfunction is the predominant residual of the [appellant's]bladder cancer.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam|Rating Criteria
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 →