CAVC Case 90-239: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · May 23, 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
BackHearing LossHipEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Court finds that the BVA erred in treating the evidence submitted by appellant as new and material when the Board itself concluded that the evidence was cumulative.
2 In August 1973, a Veterans' Administration (now Department of Veterans Affairs) (VA) Regional Office rating board denied appellant's claim for service connection for bilateral defective hearing and otitis media.
Finally, in a decision issued on March 2, 1990, after ruling that appellant had submitted new and material evidence, the BVA once again upheld the denial of appellant's claim, concluding: "The Board's decision of February 1986 is final; a new factual basis has not been provided warranting service connection for bilateral defective hearing and otitis media.
§ 3008 (1988), if evidence is found to be both "new and material," then the finality of a once "final" BVA decision is removed and the claim must be reopened and the former disposition reviewed.
On the other hand, and the reference to "cumulative" notwithstanding, the Board concluded that the evidence received since the February 1986 decision was "new and material.
First, the BVA must determine whether the evidence is 'new and material'.
Second, if the BVA determines that the claimant has produced new and material evidence, the case is reopened and the BVA must evaluate the merits of the veteran's claim in light of all the evidence, both new and old.
It matters not whether the evidence actually fails to meet the "new and material" part of the test or the claim is denied after reopening and review of the former disposition.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not New Material|Cue
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 →