CAVC Case 90-335: Skin
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · May 3, 1993 · NEBEKER
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
SkinEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
239 (1993), the Court concluded that appellant had not submitted new and material evidence and the BVA acted in excess of its statutory jurisdiction, authority and limitations, when it reopened the claim.
But it is the latter provisions which ban reopening, and, as to section 7104 (b), even preclude consideration of a previously disallowed and final claim unless new and material evidence is submitted.
If the Court sets aside every decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) rendered on the merits where the Court determines that, because of a lack of new and material evidence, the underlying claim was improperly reopened, the Court's action could result in reducing the benefit of an appellant who appealed a BVA decision which had awarded that appellant a benefit more than that awarded by a regional office (RO), but less than that which is sought on appeal to the Court.
The Court determined that the claim should not have been reopened because new and material evidence had not been submitted.
§ 7104(b) (West 1991) was "new and material" under 38 U.
§ 5108 (West 1991), the proper inquiry in both cases should be whether the evidence received since a final unappealed decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) -- a 1987 RO decision in McGinnis and a 1988 RO decision in Green -- was new and material.
either case the BVA has denied a claim on the merits which should not have been reached because no new and material evidence was presented to justify reopening the disallowed claim pursuant to 38 U.
Nevertheless, the Court has not yet explicitly held that such a claim must also be reopened pursuant to section 5108 when new and material evidence is presented to or secured by VA.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
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 →