CAVC Case 90-1150: Back

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · September 23, 1994 · 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
Vacated / Dismissed / Granted / Reversed
Decision Date
September 23, 1994
Judge
FARLEY
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackSkinHeartTDIUEyeArthritisHypertension

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

BackSkinHeartTDIUEyeArthritisHypertension

Why It Was Decided This Way

8 is a finding of fact that the Court must affirm unless that determination is found to be 'clearly erroneous'"); Bledsoe v.

32, 33 (1990) ("clearly erroneous" standard must be applied in assessing the Board's factual "determination of the capacity of the appellant's son to support himself").

Specifically, the appellants contended at oral argument that under Zevalkink there would have to be new and material evidence before they, as accrued-benefits claimants, could receive a merits adjudication of such accrued-benefits claims which were derived from any entitlement to disability compensation that the veterans had immediately prior to their deaths.

The Court further held that under those circumstances "there must be new and material evidence before the accrued-benefits claim may be considered, just as would have been the case if the veteran had himself been re-presenting the compensation claim.

The Court later reiterated: Therefore, just as the veteran was required to submit new and material evidence in order to obtain reopening and readjudication of his kidney claim during his lifetime, so there must be new and material evidence in order for the accrued-benefits claimant to obtain full adjudication of the accrued-benefits claim based upon "the same factual basis" as the veteran's denied service-connection claim.

85, could have achieved service connection prior to his death only through a reopening supported by new and material evidence.

4, 1992) (holding that the BVA has the authority to determine on a de novo basis whether new and material evidence existed to reopen a claim, notwithstanding the contrary determination (favorable to the appellant) and adjudication on the merits by the RO).

claim for hypertensive heart disease and beriberi; (2) for hemorrhoids and goiter, only if there is new and material evidence subsequent to the RO's 1971 final disallowance of his disability-compensation 14 claims for hemorrhoids and goiter; and (3) for arthritis/rheumatism, only if there is new and material evidence subsequent to the RO's 1982 final disallowance of the veteran's disability-compensation claim for arthritis/rheumatism.

Authorities Cited

Allen v. WrightBadua v. BrownBenjamin Oseo v. BrownBledsoe v. DerwinskiBreslow v. DerwinskiCerullo v. DerwinskiCiting Branham v. DerwinskiCiting Quarles v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGrottveit v. BrownHamilton v. BrownKenner v. CommissionerLandicho v. DerwinskiLandicho v. PrincipiMokal v. DerwinskiOlson v. BrownProscelle v. DerwinskiSee Cates v. BrownSee Servello v. DerwinskiSee Tobler v. DerwinskiSee Waterhouse v. PrincipiStillwell v. BrownValley Forge Christian College v. Americans UnitedZevalkink v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 20.1104 (1993)38 CFR 20.1106 (1993)38 CFR 3.155(a)38 CFR 3.155(a) (1993)38 USC 101(4)38 USC 111038 USC 131038 USC 5107(a)38 USC 510838 USC 5110(d)38 USC 5112(b)(1)38 USC 512138 USC 5121(a)38 USC 5121(a)(2)38 USC 5121(a)(5)38 USC 725138 USC 7252(a)38 USC 7261(a)(4)38 USC 7266(a)38 USC 7722

Denial Type

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 →
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.