CAVC Case 24-7841: 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
PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackKneeDiabetesTDIUEyeRadiculopathy
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
SMCBack ConditionService ConnectionEffective DateTDIUIncreased RatingDicPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
In May 2023,the Board denied entitlement to (1)an effective date prior to December 9, 2014,for the award of benefits for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy;(2) a rating in excess of 30%for depressive disorder prior to September 27,2018, and in excess of 50% thereafter; (3)ratings higher than 20%each for radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities;(4)a rating in excess of 10%for right knee flexion; and (5)a rating in excess of 10%for left knee strain.
Appellant The appellant first argues that the Board failed to address entitlement to TDIU based on individual disabilities,which she contends both she and the veteran expressly raised below.
Second,the appellant asserts that the Board failed to address the expressly raised issues of entitlement to SMC under section 1114( o )(SMC( o ))and to SMC(s).
Secretary For his part,the Secretary concedes that,with respect to the proper ratings for instability of the right and left knees,the Board failed to explain how it applied the standards under which it was operating in the context of the facts presented, and therefore vacatur of the Board's decision on that issue is warranted.
The Secretary further concedes that the Board failed to account for relevant evidence regarding the proper effective date for the award of benefits for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, and therefore the Court should vacate the Board's decision denying entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 9,2014, for that award.
Finally,the Secretary concedes that the appellant expressly raised entitlement to SMC(s)before the Board and that the Board erred by not addressing that issue.
Board Decision Initially,the Board noted that the appellant is the veteran's surviving spouse and that the matters were before the Board on appeal from September 2015 and October 2017 rating decisions.
The Board noted that,in January 2015 VA medical records, the veteran stated that his symptoms had started in October 2014 or six months prior to January 2015.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility
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 →