CAVC Case 90-858: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · August 19, 1992 · 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
BackKneeHipGIArthritisRadiculopathy
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
BackKneeHipGIArthritisRadiculopathy
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Court holds that the Board's conclusion that November 9, 1984, is the appropriate date for the assignment of a 20% disability rating was clearly erroneous, that the Board failed to consider and address properly the impact of the veteran's pain on the severity of his low back disability prior to November 1984, and that the Board did not provide reasons or bases for its findings and conclusions adequate to permit effective judicial review.
On May 25, 1983, the Merit Board concluded that the appellant was "physically unable" to perform the duties of a supply clerk and that the agency had made "every reasonable effort" to reassign him.
The Board concluded that, because the veteran's degenerative disc disease was not service connected, those symptoms could not be evaluated in relation to his lumbosacral strain.
Finally, in the "FINDING OF FACT" section of its decision, the Board concluded: The veteran's service-connected lumbar spine disorder was shown to be equivalent in severity to no more than mild intervertebral disc syndrome with no more than a slight limitation of motion and/or characteristic pain on motion prior to November 9, 1984.
Resolution of the question of whether the Board accurately determined the effective date requires the Court to decide whether the Board erred in its factfinding.
The Court reviews questions of fact using the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
49 (1990), the Court must set aside a finding of fact as clearly erroneous when the Court is left with a definite and firm conviction, after reviewing the entire evidence, that a mistake has been committed.
Based on the Court's awareness of only the 1985, 1984, and 1982 claims filed in this case, we are able to conclude that the BVA's finding that the earliest effective date could not precede November 9, 1984, was clearly erroneous.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Not Service Connected|Preponderance Against|Rating Criteria
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 →