CAVC Case 23-2829: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2024-09-30 · 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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackCervicalKneeHeadacheRadiculopathy
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 ConditionService ConnectionKnee Condition
Why It Was Decided This Way
However,after weighing the evidence,the Board found the veteran's contemporaneous statements at separation from service,which denied headaches and muscle pain,to be more credible than his more recent Case:23-2829 Page: 5 of 15 Filed:09/30/2024 statements that he experienced those issues in service.
In addressing whether a predecisional duty-to-assist error had occurred,the Board found that the most credible evidence was against a finding of persistent or recurrent symptoms of any of the claimed disabilities since service and that there wasn't any non-speculative evidence suggesting a relationship to service aside from the veteran's statements.
Ultimately,the Board found that the AOJ had not erred in determining that examinations were not warranted because the veteran is not shown to be competent to attribute any of these activities or inferred injuries as resulting in any of the claimed disabilities, id .
,and the Board found that it was precluded from considering evidence generated after the June 2021 rating decision when addressing the Secretary's duty to assist,R.
to establish that there [is]a nexus between a current disability and service.
As part of its duty to assist,VA must provide a claimant with a medical examination or opinion when there is (1)competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability;(2) evidence establishing that an event, injury,or disease occurred in service;and (3)an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of disability may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability; but (4) there is insufficient competent medical evidence of record to decide the claim.
Under the AMA,the duty to assist does not apply to the Board.
Instead,the Board reviews whether the AOJ,based on the evidence before it at the time,fulfilled the duty to assist before issuing the rating decision on appeal.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Duty To Assist|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 →