CAVC Case 90-1218: Knee

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 2, 1993 · 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.

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
Decision Date
March 2, 1993
Judge
HOLDAWAY
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

KneeHipSkinTDIU

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

KneeHipSkinTDIU

Why It Was Decided This Way

Watson appeals a July 9, 1990, Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) decision which denied his previously disallowed claim for service connection for Buerger's disease on the grounds that the evidence submitted by appellant to reopen his claim, although new and material, did "not alter the basis upon which the prior decision was predicated.

In March 1980, a VA regional office (RO) rating board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for Buerger's disease and Raynaud's syndrome, noting that his SMRs were silent as to treatment or diagnosis of either and that the conditions were not noted upon an examination given by the VA in June 1966 pursuant to a claim by the veteran for service connection for other ailments.

On December 20, 1984, the RO rating board denied his reopened claim, stating, "Statements from the veteran [were] considered along 3 with private hospital and physician's reports, but no change is warranted in the prior denial.

On February 4, 1987, the RO rating board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for Buerger's disease and Raynaud's syndrome based on the new and material evidence submitted by the veteran since the BVA's denial of the veteran's claim for service connection for peripheral vascular disease on December 9, 1982.

In denying the claim, the rating board noted, "The current evidence submitted (including duplicate evidence of record) does not establish a diagnosis of Raynaud's Syndrome/Buerger's Disease or symptomatology thereof, in order to grant service connection in service or within the [one-]year presumptive period.

On June 5, 1987, the RO rating board confirmed the previous denial of service connection for Buerger's disease and Raynaud's disease, stating that "h[ospital] r[ecord] shows treatment for claimed condition but is not new and material in that it does not serve to connect or relate to mil[itary] service or show manifestation during presumptive period.

However, there is no medical evidence to support phys[ician's] opinion and statement is not new and material to reopen claim for s[ervice] c[onnection].

constituted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the previously denied claim for s[ervice] c[onnection] for Buerger's Disease" and noting, "Evidence is duplicating, cumulative in nature, and including 7 the m[anu]s[cript] of [December 8, 1987,] offers no new and [material] factual basis for reopening the previously denied claim.

Authorities Cited

Cartwright v. DerwinskiColvin v. DerwinskiFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiJones v. DerwinskiManio v. DerwinskiRabideau v. DerwinskiSee Gleicher v. DerwinskiWood v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 3.303 (1992)38 CFR 3.307(b) (1992)38 CFR 3.309(a) (1992)38 CFR 4.1638 USC 1101(3)38 USC 1112(a)38 USC 113138 USC 510838 USC 7104(b)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7252(a)

Denial Type

Credibility|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.