CAVC Case 23-3920: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2024-09-24 · 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
DepressionPsychiatricBackKneeHearing LossTinnitusHeartRespiratoryArthritis
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 ConnectionReopenHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
The RO and the Board found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the back claim.
Regarding the etiology of hearing loss,the examiner opined that it was not related to service and explained as follows: There is no significant permanent shift in hearing threshold beyond test variability from entrance to separation,which is objective evidence of no permanent auditory damage on active duty from conceded noise.
There must be a nexus of auditory damage to relate current hearing loss to military noise and not another etiology.
The evidence is against a nexus in this case[;]therefore it is less likely than not that the hearing loss is related to military noise exposure.
In April 2019,the RO denied disability compensation for bilateral hearing loss and bilateral tinnitus and found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the back claim.
Later that month,the appellant filed supplemental claims,and in May 2019,the RO found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claims.
In May 2023,the Board denied disability compensation for bilateral hearing loss,bilateral tinnitus,and a back condition.
Parties'Arguments Regarding the Board's denial of disability compensation for a back condition,the appellant argues that the RO failed to consider and develop whether his back condition was a chronic disease under 38 C.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|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 →