CAVC Case 24-6435: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 1983-02-23 · 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
PTSDDepressionPsychiatricCervicalKneeHearing LossTinnitusSleep ApneaShoulderHip
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 ConnectionKnee ConditionIncreased RatingHearing LossPTSDSleep ApneaHip Condition
Why It Was Decided This Way
The shoulder examiner concluded that the appellant's left shoulder condition was less likely than not related to service.
Although the fall down stairs with bilateral shoulder injury is acknowledge[d],a nexus for service connection cannot be made at this time due to the missing elements of origin and chronicity of the current claimed conditio[]n.
A disability which began in service or was caused by some event in service must be considered chronic before a nexus for service connection can be established.
Therefore, a nexus for service connection for the shoulder condition cannot be made.
Specifically,he contends that the Board did not address the June 2012 private audiogram,which he contends shows hearing loss for VA purposes in the right ear.
In addition,he avers that, because he submitted the private audiogram with his initial application, the issue of the relevance of this document was reasonably and explicitly raised[,]and the Board erred by not specifically addressing it.
Board Decision As an initial matter,the Board noted that the appeal stemmed from September,November, and December 2020 RO decisions.
The Board found,however,that the appellant did not have a left or right ear hearing loss disability for VA purposes.
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 →