CAVC Case 90-305: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · May 24, 1991 · 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
BackHipSkinEyeHypertension
Why It Was Decided This Way
On February 5, 1986, the rating board denied appellant's claim for service connection for a skin condition of the feet (tinea pedis), a back condition, and hypertension.
The Board found that appellant had abandoned the earlier claims he had filed in 1962 and 1979 for a skin disorder of his feet.
158(a) (1990), the Board concluded that the earliest effective date to which appellant was entitled was November 7, 1985, the date he reopened the claim that led to service connection being granted.
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 old and new.
If the BVA determines that the evidence presented was not new and material, then that determination would be reviewable by this Court.
On the other hand, "if the BVA determines that the evidence is 'new and material', reopens and reconsiders the claim, and once again denies the claim, that decision is subject to review on appeal to this Court based upon the entire record because the decision of the BVA was required to be based upon all evidence and material of record.
Here, we must assume that the BVA found that appellant had submitted new and material evidence because the BVA concluded that the new evidence did not provide a new factual basis for allowance.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not New Material|Duty To Assist|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 →