CAVC Case 23-5933: Knee

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2025-05-30 · 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.

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
Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
2025-05-30
Judge
JAQUITH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

KneeTinnitusHipTDIUArthritisRadiculopathy

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

Service ConnectionKnee ConditionTDIUIncreased RatingHearing LossHip Condition

Why It Was Decided This Way

In July 2019, the Board denied service connection for a right hip condition and degenerative arthritis of the right knee.

In the July 5, 2023,decision on appeal, the Board noted that the rating criteria for disabilities of the musculoskeletal system were revised effective February 7,2021, but the DCs pertaining to hip disabilities remained unchanged except for DC 5255 regarding impairment of the femur.

The Board concluded that the veteran's right hip disability continued to warrant a noncompensable rating under DC 5251 because he has not exhibited an extension limited to 5 degrees ; his disability also warranted a noncompensable rating under DC 5253 because [his]limitation of abduction was at least 25 degrees and not lost beyond 10 degrees and [his]limitation in adduction [di]d not prevent [him]from crossing his legs ;and his disability warranted a 10%rating under DC 5252 because his flexion was,at most limited,to 50 degrees.

As for the veteran's right knee disability,the Board likewise determined that the April 2017 VA exam warranted little to no probative value because of an internal inconsistency regarding whether the veteran had ankylosis, and the veteran's report about the severity of his condition lacked credibility due to prior inconsistent and contradictory statements.

The Board found that the [v]eteran was able to extend, at worst,to zero degree[s],consistent with a noncompensable rating under DC 5261,and that he did not have flexion limited to 45 degrees or less to support a compensable rating under DC 5260 or ankylosis of the right knee to warrant a higher rating under DC 5256.

Despite acknowledging the veteran's complaints of feeling like he has popping,locking,and giving way of his right knee, the Board concluded that the medical evidence does not establish that these feelings have been due to a separate knee impairment other than the limitations of flexion that have been documented on examination.

have always been found to be normal, the Board determined that there was no clinically observable instability that would give rise to a separate disability that manifests with compensable,functional impairment.

7 Case:23-5933 Page: 8 of 13 Filed:05/30/2025 Finally,regarding TDIU,the Board noted that the veteran met the criteria for TDIU on a schedular basis due to his combined disability rating of 70%as of May 19,2021, 12 and that [p]rior to May 19,2021,the Board w[ould]consider whether referral for extraschedular consideration under 38 C.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArline v. McBuchanan v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownChavis v. McConnell v. NicholsonCorreia v. McFletcher v. DerwinskiFountain v. McGilbert v. DerwinskiLuca v. BrownLyles v. ShulkinMahl v. PrincipiMitchell v. ShinsekiPetitti v. McSee Andrews v. McSee Deloach v. ShinsekiSharp v. ShulkinThompson v. McTucker v. WestValles v. Mc

Denial Type

Credibility|Rating Criteria

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