CAVC Case 91-1665: Hip
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 30, 1995 · KRAMER
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
HipHeadacheSkinEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the Secretary's imposition by regulation of a causal nexus requirement, i.
Statutory Law The statute in effect when the appellant filed his claim for vocational rehabilitation in June 1989 did not require a causal nexus between a service-connected disability and an employment handicap.
) The issue before this Court is whether VA's imposition by regulation of a causal nexus, i.
Although earlier versions of the relevant statute did require a causal nexus between the service- connected disability and the employment handicap, see infra part III.
The language of the 1989 version, as well as that of the statute presently in effect, makes no reference whatsoever to such a nexus requirement.
The Secretary's Arguments As in Gardner, "[d]espite the absence from the statutory language of so much as a word about [a causal nexus], the Government proposes two interpretations in attempting to reveal a [causal nexus requirement] implicit in the text .
The first is that there is a "gap" in the statute which the Secretary is authorized to fill by regulation; the second is that § 3102 contains an implied causal nexus requirement.
The "Implied Causal Nexus" Argument This argument runs as follows: Because there are other statutes in chapter 31 that do contain express causal nexus requirements, it would lead to an "absurd result," and perhaps "raise concerns of fairness under the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause," if we refuse to infer such a requirement in § 3102.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
No Nexus
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 →