CAVC Case 24-7617: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2025-09-30 · 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
PTSDDepressionAnxietySkinRespiratoryHypertension
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 DateReopenIncreased RatingPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
At a VA skin conditions examination the same month,the examiner diagnosed tinea pedis with a 1969 date of onset but did not opine as to nexus.
However, the examiner opined that the appellant's condition was less likely than not related to service, and he provided the following rationale: As [service treatment records]are silent concerning a tinea [pedis]/athletes' foot condition,the [appellant's]claimed athletes'foot right and left condition was less likely than not (likelihood is less than approximately balanced or nearly equal) incurred in or caused by the please see veteran lay statement (annotated)during service.
Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board erred by relying on the November 2023 VA medical opinion,which he contends is inadequate,and he asserts that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for its assignment of probative value to that medical opinion.
Specifically,he avers that the examiner, in rendering a negative nexus opinion, impermissibly relied upon the absence of a diagnosis or treatment in his service treatment records and did not account for the appellant's lay statements regarding the onset of his symptoms in service.
at 7, and thus,he contends that the medical examiner's rationale failed to support the examiner's medical judgment that [the appellant's]current disability [is]not related to his military service, id.
Regarding the appellant's contention that the Board relied on a lack of in-service diagnoses or treatment and did not consider his lay statements, the Secretary counters that the Board instead found that the contemporaneous medical evidence and VA examinations and medical opinion were more probative than his statements.
Law Establishing that a disability is service connected for purposes of entitlement to VA disability compensation generally requires medical or,in certain circumstances,lay evidence of (1)a current disability,(2)incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service,and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service injury or disease and the current disability.
Additionally,under certain circumstances,and as part of its duty to assist claimants,VA must provide a medical examination.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
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 →