CAVC Case 24-4780: Heart
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2025-10-22 · 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
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 ConnectionEffective DateReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
The parties further agreed that the Board failed to address whether the appellant's macular degeneration was caused by in-service exposure to Agent Orange.
3 Case:24-4780 Page: 4 of 10 Filed:10/22/2025 The Board,in May 2024, dismissed the appeal regarding disability compensation on a direct basis for coronary artery disease, hypertension,diabetes mellitus,and diabetic retinopathy, and the Board denied disability compensation for right and left eye macular degeneration.
Parties'Arguments Regarding coronary artery disease, hypertension,diabetes mellitus,and diabetic retinopathy,the appellant argues that the Board erroneously characterized the matters on appeal as downstream effective date issues,and therefore the Board erred by dismissing his appeal as to those matters.
Regarding bilateral macular degeneration,he avers that the Board erred in determining that a TERA examination was not warranted and that the Board used the wrong standard in making that determination.
Next, he maintains that the December 2009 VA examiner's opinion is inadequate because the examiner did not address the following:(1)whether his eye condition is directly related to the vision problems documented during service, (2)his 2022 Board hearing testimony,(3)the specific photography chemicals that he was exposed to during service,and (4)medical records reflecting a diagnosis of central areolar choroidal dystrophy.
Alternatively,he posits that the Board failed to reconcile the conflicting medical evidence and determine whether a new examination was necessary.
For his part,the Secretary concedes that the Board failed to substantially comply with the terms of the JMPR by dismissing the appeal with respect to disability compensation for coronary artery disease,hypertension,diabetes mellitus,and diabetic retinopathy.
However,the Board determined that,to the extent that the appellant had sought service connection for those disabilities,the benefits sought were awarded in full.
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 →