CAVC Case 24-0638: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2025-03-24 · 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
BackKneeHearing LossTinnitusShoulderAnkleDiabetesRespiratoryArthritisRadiculopathy
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 ConnectionKnee ConditionHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant argues that the Board erred by (1)failing to address favorable evidence and to lay a proper foundation for denying service connection for tinnitus;(2)failing to discuss whether the appellant was entitled to an award of service connection for diabetes on a presumptive basis when it denied service connection for a right and left arm disability,a left knee disability,and left foot disability;and (3)relying on inadequate medical examinations.
Case:24-638 Page: 2 of 12 Filed:03/24/2025 The Secretary concedes that the Board erred in denying service connection for tinnitus and a right foot disability.
The appellant argues that the Secretary's concession regarding tinnitus is inadequate because the Court should address the Board's flawed credibility determination.
The Court will accept the Secretary's concessions of error regarding tinnitus and the right foot condition claims,but the Court will also address the appellant's argument regarding the Board's credibility determination.
The examiner relied on the appellant's normal hearing at separation and a denial of hearing loss in [the]record to provide a negative nexus opinion.
In October 2021,a VA hearing loss and tinnitus examiner found that the appellant's claimed tinnitus was less likely than not related to service because the appellant reported no ringing/buzzing/hum at today's appointment.
The examiner found that the appellant's claimed left arm condition was not related to service because the appellant did not undergo treatment for an orthopedic condition in service and did not undergo treatment until about November 2021.
The examiner found that the appellant's right and left shoulder conditions were not related to service because the appellant reported that the shoulder conditions began in the 1990s and the medical records were silent for treatment until November 2021 for the left shoulder and until February 2012 for the right shoulder.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|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 →