CAVC Case 23-5944: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2024-10-31 · 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
PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricHeart
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
Increased RatingPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
After the Board denied a rating in excess of 30%for the appellant's PTSD, he appealed to the Court,and the parties entered into a joint motion for partial remand,which the Court granted.
In August 2023,the Board denied an initial rating in excess of 30%for PTSD.
Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board denied a 50%rating based on standards that are not set out in the rating criteria.
Further,the appellant contends that the Board should not have relied on his participation in therapy to deny him a higher rating;the Board did not consider evidence that he was not working during the full period on appeal;there is no support for the Board's findings that his prior work was skilled and thus suggested that his memory is not impaired;and the Board overlooked favorable evidence that checking the house locks multiple times per night was causing interference with his sleep,a routine activity.
The Board's determination of the proper disability rating is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
As with any material issue of fact or law,the Board must provide a statement of reasons or bases that is adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision,as well as to facilitate review in this Court.
Board Decision As an initial matter,the Board noted that the appellant had reported symptoms including depression,anxiety,flashbacks, hypervigilance,sleep difficulties, interpersonal problems, cognitive deficits,and social isolation.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
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 →