CAVC Case 90-1360: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 1, 1993 · NEBEKER, Chief Judge
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
BackKneeHeartEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant asserts that, although he did not submit evidence that was "new and material", under the precedents of this Court, so as to reopen his previously and finally denied claim, the Board was required to review his claim de novo pursuant to 38 U.
4105 (1988), or, alternatively, that his evidence must be considered new and material because the Board at the time of its prior decisions had been statutorily prohibited from considering similar evidence then submitted.
The Board noted: "No specific allegations of obvious error have been made with respect to these determinations in the current appeal.
The Board concluded that "the additional evidence consisting of personal hearing testimony does not reasonably establish that the veteran's [MS] is the result of his active service.
At oral argument on the present appeal, the Court requested the parties to submit supplemental memoranda addressing, inter alia, the issue of whether the scope of the VA's authority to reopen a claim in the event of new and material evidence was changed by the VJRA and whether the VA's practice with regard to reopening claims upon new and material evidence had been in conformance with the statutory requirements prior to the VJRA.
§ 5108 (West 1991), the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) is required to reopen a previously and finally denied claim when "new and material evidence" is presented or secured with respect to that claim.
First, it must determine whether the evidence presented or secured since the prior final disallowance of the claim is "new and material".
Because the BVA did not apply the two-step Manio test, it is not clear from its decision whether the Board concluded that there was new and material evidence to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection of his MS.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
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 →