CAVC Case 23-6651: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2024-08-21 · 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
DepressionPsychiatricBackHearing LossAnkleHeadacheHeartArthritisRadiculopathy
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 ConnectionHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
In the October 2023 decision on appeal,the Board denied entitlement to benefits for degenerative arthritis;lumbosacral disc degeneration with herniated disc and moderate stenosis at L2-L3,L3-L4;RLS;right and left leg conditions;artery disease with past myocardial infarction; artery conditions;and depression.
ANALYSIS The appellant argues that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases because the Board failed to address relevant,favorable lay evidence and medical treatise evidence; relied on the absence of evidence as substantive negative evidence; and overlooked evidence that otherwise negated its credibility determination.
He further asserts that the Board erred when it found that VA had no duty to afford him a VA medical examination to address whether his musculoskeletal conditions are related to service and whether his heart condition, peripheral vascular disease,and depression are secondary to his musculoskeletal disabilities.
Law Establishing that a disability is service connected for purposes of entitlement to VA disability compensation generally requires medical or,in certain circumstances,lay evidence of (1)a current disability,(2)incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service,and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service injury or disease and the current disability.
It is the Board's responsibility,as factfinder, to determine the credibility and weight to be given to the evidence.
429,433 (1995)(holding that the Board is responsible for assessing the credibility and weight of evidence and that the Court may overturn the Board's decision only if it is clearly erroneous).
The Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the material evidence,account for the evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.
Whether the record establishes entitlement to service connection is a finding of fact,which the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.
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 →