CAVC Case 24-676: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2025-05-30 · JAQUITH, 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
DepressionPsychiatricBackKneeAnkleTDIUEyeArthritisRadiculopathy
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 DateReopenTDIU
Why It Was Decided This Way
A July 2016 rating decision found that new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen a claim for hepatitis C, but the RO denied service connection because a June 2016 VA examination 3 noted no current disability, as recent lab work showed normal basic liver function and no current residuals.
The Board noted the veteran's assertion that the 7 Ribavirin is an anti-viral oral medication that is frequently used in conjunction with interferon to mitigate the effects of hepatitis C.
In March 2020,the RO denied an earlier effective date based on CUE in the January 2012 rating decision for the service-connected left arm disability because the initial denial was based on evidence that no current disability was shown.
Finally,the representative argued that VA failed to address medical evidence of limitations in the veteran's ability to complete overhead motions,including whether a separate rating under DC 5201 12 was warranted for his left arm disability.
Regarding the effective date for the service-connected psychiatric disability,the Board found that the January 2012 rating decision did not adjudicate a claim for a psychiatric disability,R.
Based on these findings, the Board found that 38 C.
However,the Board noted that the [STR] undergirding this assertion had been recently submitted to the record in the course of the claim filed in 2016,from which the instant appeal arises.
Finally,the Board cited the veteran's CUE motion to revise the January 2012 rating decision because it failed to adjudicate service connection for a psychiatric disability,but the Board denied that motion because [i]t is an absolute prerequisite to prevail on such a motion that the decision in question have adjudicated the issue.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|Cue|No Current Disability
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 →