CAVC Case 24-0052: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2025-07-09 · GREENBERG, 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
BackHearing LossTinnitusShoulderAnkleArthritis
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 ConnectionHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant argues that the Board erred by relying on June 2022 and January 2023 medical opinions,which were inadequate because the examiners did not address his lay statements regarding his in-service ear discomfort and in-service heavy lifting,and because the examiners' rationale as to the relationship between hearing loss and tinnitus was contradictory.
The appellant also argues that by relying on the inadequate medical opinions the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for finding that VA satisfied its duty to assist him with his claim.
The appellant additionally asserts that the Board erred by failing to ensure substantial compliance with its December 2021 remand order when it failed to obtain medical opinions addressing his lay statements.
The appellant argues that the Board failed to address the reasonably raised issue whether the onset of tinnitus within 6 months of his separation from service reflected the onset of hearing loss at that time.
Case:24-52 Page: 2 of 12 Filed:07/09/2025 The Secretary concedes that the Board erred when it failed to ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist the appellant by obtaining adequate VA medical opinions for the right ankle and right shoulder disabilities.
The Secretary acknowledges that the June 2022,December 2022, and January 2023 medical opinions of record did not consider the appellant's lay statements of in-service heavy lifting.
st found that auditory damage and hearing loss were not conceded based on noise alone[,]therefore a nexus is not established.
The Board found substantial compliance with the December 2021 remand directives.
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 →