CAVC Case 23-4685: Back

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2023-06-13 · 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
Unknown
Decision Date
2023-06-13
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackKneeHearing LossTinnitusArthritis

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

Back ConditionService ConnectionKnee ConditionIncreased RatingHearing Loss

Why It Was Decided This Way

The appellant's hearing loss was less likely than not related to his military service.

June 2023 Board Decision In the decision on appeal, the Board denied service connection for left ear hearing loss, finding that the veteran did not have a current left ear hearing loss disability for VA purposes.

The Board denied service connection for a right knee disability,right ear hearing loss,and tinnitus,finding that the evidence persuasively weighed against finding that the disabilities began during active service,were shown as chronic in service,manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service,caused continual symptoms since service,or were otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

The Board found not credible the veteran's reports that since service he had experienced continual right knee symptoms,because at separation from service the veteran denied having any swollen or painful joints, arthritis, rheumatism,bursitis,or trick or locked knee, and because he did not complain of right knee pain until November 2011,when he reported a 2-month history of right knee pain,with no previous knee injury.

The Board considered the veteran's and his wife's reports that a fall during service caused his right knee disability,but the Board found that an examination was not warranted because there was no competent evidence of a nexus to service that triggered VA's duty to assist.

Finding that the veteran had a current diagnosis of a right ear hearing loss disability and recurrent tinnitus,but relying on the February 2017 examiner's opinion that hearing loss and tinnitus less likely resulted from military service,the Board denied service connection for right ear hearing loss and tinnitus.

The Board noted that the veteran's report of continual symptoms of hearing loss and tinnitus since service was inconsistent with statements that his problems began many years after service,and the Board found his more recent accounts of continual symptoms,made in pursuing compensation,were less credible.

The appellant appears to argue that the Board failed to ensure that the duty to assist was satisfied because the Board relied on inadequate examinations and failed to provide an examination assessing his right knee condition.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonBrammer v. DerwinskiCaluza v. BrownDavis v. WestEuzebio v. McFletcher v. DerwinskiFrankel v. DerwinskiHoward v. GoberKutscherousky v. WestLendon v. NicholsonLoving v. NicholsonMonzingo v. ShinsekiPalczewski v. NicholsonPerez v. DerwinskiRodriguez v. PeakeRomanowsky v. ShinsekiSee Bardwell v. ShinsekiSee Best v. PrincipiSee Breeden v. PrincipiSee Hilkert v. WestSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Reonal v. BrownSee Shinseki v. SandersSee Tadlock v. McSee Tucker v. WestSimmons v. WilkieStefl v. Nicholson

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