CAVC Case 90-720: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · February 18, 1994 · 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
BackCervicalKneeHearing LossTinnitusShoulderHeadacheTBIGIArthritis
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
BackCervicalKneeHearing LossTinnitusShoulderHeadacheTBI
Why It Was Decided This Way
3 On July 20, 1988, the rating board denied service connection for a seizure disorder, headaches, peripheral vascular disease, and venous insufficiency.
The rating board found that there was no evidence to indicate that these conditions were related to an automobile accident which occurred during appellant's time in the service.
On May 22, 1989, the rating board decided not to reopen appellant's claim because these signed forms for the release of medical evidence where the records were destroyed in the fire would not constitute new and material evidence.
Appellant argued that the Secretary had breached his statutory duty to assist under 38 U.
The Court held that appellant was entitled to have the Secretary assist him in obtaining records sought, and, if they were found to be new and material evidence, to have his claim 4 reopened and readjudicated.
In its April 28, 1992, decision, the rating board determined that the evidence did not establish any finding that would warrant a change in the prior denial of service connection for the residuals of a motor vehicle accident, frostbite of the feet, or hearing loss.
The Board found that evidence submitted since the March 1989 decision was new and material evidence and therefore reopened both claims.
The Board determined that the newly submitted evidence: (1) covered a time period closer to appellant's service than the evidence which was previously of record, (2) bore directly on the matter under review, and (3) if accepted as true, might change the outcome of the claims.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|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 →