CAVC Case 90-1053: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · December 18, 1991 · FARLEY
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
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
BackKneeHipArthritis
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Court finds that the evidence submitted by appellant is new and material under 38 C.
The issue presented in the Statement of the Case was whether new and material evidence was submitted to establish service connection for arthritis of the left knee as secondary to the veteran's service-connected pes cavus.
The first step is to determine whether appellant has submitted new and material evidence.
The Board has not given the Court adequate information to determine whether new and material evidence was found.
Whether evidence is new and material is a conclusion of law.
In determining whether evidence is new and material, we look to 38 C.
Appellant was entitled to have his claim reopened because he submitted new and material evidence.
The decision does not meet this standard because it fails to explain adequately why the Board determined that appellant's left-knee arthritis was not caused by his left-foot condition, or, in the alternative, why the increase of his left-knee arthritis was not caused by his left-foot condition, and thus secondarily service-connected.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Not Service Connected|Not New Material
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 →