CAVC Case 23-0642: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2022-12-23 · JAQUITH, 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
BackCervicalKneeHearing LossTinnitusShoulderHeartRespiratoryArthritisRadiculopathy
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 ConnectionKnee ConditionHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Court remands these matters because the Board providedan inadequate statement of reasons or bases for denying service connection for the veteran's lumbar and cervical spine disabilities,and the Board failed to ensure that VA complied with the June 2022 remand order regarding hearing loss.
The physician opined that the veteran's neck and lumbar conditions were as likely as not related to his military service.
The physician stated that the veteran has had to modify and adapt to his pain and range of motion due to his degenerative joint disease of the knees,and the physician opined that the veteran's neck and lumbar conditions were as likely as not related to or secondary to his service[-]connected bilateral knee condition.
conditions were inadequate because they failed apply thecorrect standard for assessing aggravation, did not addresswhether his spine conditions were linked to his bilateral knee condition as a result of degeneration and altered gait,and only discussed his service-connected right knee disability without considering his service-connected left knee disability.
did not consider the [v]eteran's competent lay statements regarding excessive noise exposure while working on jet engines in service.
The report also provided a negative nexus opinion for secondary service connection,concluding that the veteran's back disability was at least as likely as not due to his fall at work on ice in 1982 and aggravated by his MVA in 1992, rather than being proximately due to or the result of his bilateral knee condition(s).
The report also provided a negative opinion for secondary service connection because the current medical literature does not support a nexus between altered gait [and]cervical degenerative dis[c]/joint disease and instead suggests [that]genetics alongwith environmental factors (primarily mechanical injuries imposedon normal aging changes).
As to the orthopedic claims, the Board noted that the March 2019 remand directive had incorrectly instructed the examiner regarding the definition of aggravation under 38 C.
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 →