CAVC Case 90-0818: Psychiatric
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · April 12, 1995 · HOLDAWAY
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
PsychiatricBackKneeHearing LossHipAnkleEyeArthritisHypertension
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
PsychiatricBackKneeHearing LossHipAnkleEyeArthritis
Why It Was Decided This Way
In a July 1988 decision, the RO determined that the veteran had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claim because no medical records had shown a right-leg injury during service and that, "[i]n the absence of complete clinical records showing diagnosis of or treatment during service for the veteran's claimed conditions, the statements of others are insufficient to substantiate the claim for service incurrence".
The Board stated that the Court had directed the Board to readjudicate on the basis of all the evidence and material of record, that the claim was well grounded, and that there was no duty to assist the veteran because he had not indicated that there were additional records to be obtained.
The Board noted that the 1970 claim was for a wound to the right foot, whereas the veteran's current claim was for a wound to the "anterior midtibial" area.
Martinez, the Board found that it was "not an original document, [did] not contain any clinical findings descriptive or characteristic of residuals of a shrapnel wound", and was "of little probative value".
Vito, the Board noted that he had stated that the wound might have occurred "after" World War II.
Abena stating that he had treated the veteran for a wound in 1946, the Board noted that the 1945 physical, the 1947 affidavit, and the 1970 report from Dr.
As to the lay statements, the Board noted that some stated that the veteran had been treated only at the battalion aid station, while others reported that he had later been transferred to Camp Spencer.
The Board concluded that the evidence submitted by the veteran was not credible, and therefore was not "satisfactory" under section 1154(b), in that the other evidence "clearly rebutted" the incurrence of any SFW to the right leg during service.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist
Find Similar Precedent 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 →