CAVC Case 90-744: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · April 28, 1992 · 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
BackHipEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
We find that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) prevented the veteran from presenting new and material evidence to reopen his claim by failing to fulfill the VA's duty to assist the veteran in developing his claim.
On April 7, 1989, the VA determined that the evidence submitted was not new and material and no reconsideration would be given to his claim.
On March 22, 1990, the Board found that, "[t]he veteran's inservice [sic] injury was acute and transitory and resolved without identifiable residuals.
On April 7, 1989, the VARO sent a letter to appellant stating that "the evidence [he] submitted to reopen [his] previously denied claim is not new and material.
The VARO never stated, however, whether the evidence submitted was new and material.
Then, on June 22, 1989, when appellant requested reconsideration of his claim, the VA told him that if he had "additional medical evidence which is new and material to [his] case" to submit it.
The BVA decision made a conclusory statement that the veteran reopened his claim in November 1988 and proceeded to evaluate the merits of appellant's claim, without first determining whether there was new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the claim.
First, the BVA must determine whether the evidence is `new and material'.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not New Material|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam
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 →