CAVC Case 23-2243: Psychiatric

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2023-03-28 · PIETSCH, 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

per month ·  per year, tax-free

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)
RatingMonthly (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
See your full claim picture — free
Outcome
Remanded
Decision Date
2023-03-28
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PsychiatricTinnitusShoulderHipEyeRadiculopathy

Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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 ConnectionEffective DateIncreased RatingHearing Loss

Why It Was Decided This Way

The Court will vacate the part of the Board's decision that failed to address the appellant's argument in his December 2021 NOD that he was entitled to compensation for unrated manifestations of his right-side paralysis and will remand the matter for further 1 Though the Board did not specify which nerve the facial cranial nerve is,VA's rating schedule refers to the facial cranial nerve as the seventh cranial nerve.

The appellant requested compensation for weakness and numbness of his right side,characterized as a nervous condition, and in an August 1980 decision,the Board denied service connection for a nervous condition.

Bush opined that the veteran's constellation of neurological signs/ symptoms that are well documented was more likely than not related to his active military service.

Bush noted that the veteran's peripheral neuropathy caused limitations in prolonged standing,walking, lifting, carrying,stooping,and bending,and opined that the veteran's peripheral neuropathy was as likely as not related to military service.

The 4 physician opined that the veteran's right-sided pathology was as likely as not related to his military service.

In an August 2021 decision,the Board noted that it did not have jurisdiction over the rating issue described in the July 2021 NOD because the RO in May 2021 explained that the issue was being returned for a new VA examination and no decision had yet been issued for that increased rating claim.

The Board noted that,based on the phrasing of the veteran's statement disagreeing with his combined 30%disability rating, it seems clear to the Board that the veteran was disagreeing with the rating for the seventh,facial,cranial nerve,as well as the initial ratings assigned for his paralysis of the right side or Bell's palsy of the fifth,ninth,and eleventh cranial nerves.

The Board noted that it had administratively notified the RO about the matter and requested that they address the March 2021 HLR request by reviewing the assigned ratings for all the [v]eteran's service-connected disabilities and that once the RO made a determination, the appellant.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownCaluza v. BrownEvans v. ShinsekiFrankel v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiJarvis v. WestLedford v. WestMoore v. ShinsekiRobinson v. ShinsekiSchafrath v. DerwinskiSee Best v. PrincipiSee Collaro v. WestSee Gabrielson v. BrownSee Harris v. DerwinskiSee Hensley v. WestSee Suttmann v. BrownSee Tadlock v. McSee Tucker v. WestShinseki v. SandersShoemaker v. Derwinski

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 →
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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.

VetAid is a free veterans claims tool, not a VA-accredited representative — it does not file anything with VA for you, and it works alongside your accredited VSO, claims agent or attorney. About VetAid