CAVC Case 24-7325: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2025-12-11 · 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
BackKneeShoulderAnkleArthritis
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 ConnectionReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
The RO denied the claim as to the right shoulder because he had not submitted new and material evidence and as to the left shoulder because there was no evidence of nexus or of an in-service event or injury.
The examiner concluded that the appellant's bilateral shoulder disabilities were less likely than not related to service and provided the following rationale: [The appellant]is having [status post] arthroplasty due to degenerative disease of [the]bilateral shoulders.
In July 2023,the Board found the October 2020 VA opinion inadequate because the examiner primarily relied on the lack of complaints in service regarding a bilateral shoulder 3 Case:24-7325 Page: 4 of 20 Filed:12/11/2025 condition when rendering the opinion.
The examiner must provide separate findings and rationales relating to causation and aggravation.
Appellant The appellant first argues that the Board erred in making a legally insufficient credibility determination.
Next,the appellant argues that the Board failed to ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist and to comply with the July 2023 Board remand because the March 2024 VA opinions are 6 Case:24-7325 Page: 7 of 20 Filed:12/11/2025 inadequate to address the theory of secondary service connection.
Finally,the appellant maintains that [t]he Board erred when it used its adverse credibility finding to circumvent its duty to ensure compliance with its July 2023 remand instructions.
He contends that,because the Board expressly directed the examiner to address his lay statements,the Board implicitly found him credible, or [a]t the very least, the Board did not question [his]credibility and therefore failed to notify him that his credibility was still at issue.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|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 →