CAVC Case 90-1138: Back

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · May 18, 1993 · 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

per month ·  per year, tax-free

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)
RatingMonthly (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
See your full claim picture — free
Outcome
Denied / Dismissed / Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
May 18, 1993
Judge
FARLEY
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackAnkleHeartTDIUEyeRadiculopathyHypertension

Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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

BackAnkleHeartTDIUEyeRadiculopathyHypertension

Why It Was Decided This Way

The appellant's primary contention on appeal is that the Board erred in failing to award a service-connected rating for beriberi or beriberi heart disease.

Although the RO's December 1988 decision did not specifically discuss the issues of service connection for beriberi and beriberi heart disease, the decision listed those conditions as not service connected.

The Board denied ratings higher than 10% (for "mild" incomplete paralysis of external popliteal nerve) because the neurological examinations of record had indicated that the condition caused no impairment in the veteran's gait, that he had full motor strength and no atrophy, and that his only symptoms were some decreased sensation and pain and tingling.

49, 55 (1990) (section 5107 establishes "chronological obligations" by which claimant's submission of well-grounded claim gives rise to VA's duty to assist and to adjudicate the claim under governing law and regulation).

Applying the foregoing standards to the instant case, the Court holds, for the reasons stated below, that the Board erred in failing to adjudicate the claim, reasonably raised to it by the appellant, for entitlement to service-connected disability compensation for beriberi.

When, on the basis of the evidence of record, two or more provisions of VA's rating schedule are potentially applicable to the evaluation of a particular disability, the Board must provide reasons or bases for its decision to rate that disability under one such provision rather than another potentially applicable provision.

at 59 (BVA required to provide "analysis of the credibility or probative value of the evidence submitted by or on behalf of the veteran").

at 2, 26-27), the veteran was not required to submit "new and material evidence" in order to give rise to a duty on the part of the RO and BVA to adjudicate those claims.

Authorities Cited

Abernathy v. PrincipiAkles v. DerwinskiAmerica v. ClarkBernard v. BrownBolling v. SharpeBranham v. DerwinskiDouglas v. DerwinskiFanning v. BrownFlores v. United StatesFugere v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGinnis v. BrownGrottveit v. BrownHamilton v. BrownHamilton v. DerwinskiHatlestad v. DerwinskiIn Darrow v. DerwinskiIn Fluharty v. DerwinskiLendenmann v. PrincipiLittke v. DerwinskiManio v. DerwinskiMartin v. BrownMoore v. DerwinskiMurphy v. DerwinskiMyers v. DerwinskiPayne v. DerwinskiPernorio v. DerwinskiPlaquemines Port v. Federal Maritime CommProscelle v. DerwinskiQuarles v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.9 (1992)38 CFR 20.1103 (1992)38 CFR 3.155(a) (1992)38 CFR 3.15638 CFR 3.160(e) (1992)38 CFR 3.303(c) (1992)38 CFR 3.307(a)38 CFR 3.309(c)38 CFR 3.309(c) (1992)38 CFR 3.310(a) (1992)38 CFR 4.123 (1992)38 CFR 4.2038 CFR 4.27 (1992)38 CFR 4.88a38 USC 1112(b)38 USC 1112(b)(2)38 USC 1112(c)38 USC 312(b)(13)38 USC 501(a)38 USC 503

Denial Type

Credibility|Not Service Connected|Not New Material|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 →
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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.