CAVC Case 23-527: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2024-07-31 · 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
PTSDDepressionPsychiatricKneeHearing LossTinnitusTBIDiabetesArthritisHypertension
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 ConnectionKnee ConditionIncreased RatingHearing LossPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
A separate medical opinion completed by the same psychologist provided a negative nexus and stated that the [e]xaminer sees no evidence of [m]emory [l]oss.
The Board denied service connection for memory loss in September 2020,finding that the competent medical evidence of record did not show a current disability,R.
The August 2021 JMPR noted that the Board had failed to ensure that the duty to assist had been satisfied,as potentially relevant records from the Social Security Administration (SSA)remained outstanding.
Case:23-527 Page: 4 of 20 Filed:07/31/2024 On appeal,the veteran asserts that the Board erred when it failed to address his explicitly raised argument that the September 2019 VA mental disorders examination was inadequate because the examining psychologist failed to comply with the Board's May 2018 remand order.
The Secretary concedes that the Board failed to address this argument,thereby violating its duty to consider all issues explicitly raised by the veteran.
242,244 (2008) (holding that the Court has jurisdiction to review whether the Board erred in failing to consider theories reasonably raised by the record).
Upon remand,the Board must provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases that explicitly addresses the veteran's arguments regarding the adequacy of the September 2019 VA mental disorders examination and whether it complied with the Board's May 2018 remand instructions.
In May 2018,the Board noted that because the veteran's service audiograms showed a bilateral threshold shift of at least 10 decibels from enlistment to separation, remand was warranted so that the veteran could attend a VA examination to determine the nature,onset,and etiology of the hearing loss.
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 →