CAVC Case 23-4310: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2024-11-14 · MOORMAN
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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricHeadacheSkin
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 Connection
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Board found that neither the October 2020 nor the November 2020 examiner had adequately addressed whether VA had acted carelessly or negligently by not properly numbing the incision site, or whether a reasonable healthcare provider would have considered the appellant.
The Board found its June 2022 directives had not been complied with because the examiner who provided the August and September 2022 opinions was not an appropriate clinician to opine as to the nature and etiology of the appellant.
The timing of this makes his adjustment disorder less likely as not related to the treatment at issue.
The representative argued that the March 2023 medical opinion was inadequate because it failed to address the November 2020 medical opinion and appeared to be biased and/or accusatory given the examiner's statements that the appellant.
In the May 2023 decision here on appeal,the Board found that there is no indication of carelessness,negligence,lack of proper skill,error in judgment,or similar instance of fault on the 9 Case:23-4310 Page: 10 of 15 Filed:11/14/2024 part of VA when it rendered treatment to the appellant.
The Board found that the March 2023 psychiatrist's opinions failed to address notations of anxiety documented in the appellant.
The Board also found that the opinions did not meaningfully discuss whether the appellant had a preexisting psychiatric disorder manifested by anxiety that was aggravated by the August 2015 procedure,but the Board determined that remanding to correct these deficiencies would not impact the ultimate disposition of the case: Even assuming that the [v]eteran did suffer a qualifying additional disability caused by surgical treatment furnished by VA,there is no evidence that the proximate cause of the Veteran�s disability was carelessness, negligence,lack of proper skill, error in judgment,or similar instance of fault on the part of VA,or an event not reasonably foreseeable.
The Board's determination regarding entitlement to compensation under section 1151 is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
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 →