CAVC Case 91-1688: Back

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · September 16, 1993 · 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

Rating Married Children

per month · per year, tax-free

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

See your full claim picture — free

Outcome

Unknown

Decision Date

September 16, 1993

Judge

NEBEKER, Chief Judge

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

Back Cervical Knee Hearing Loss Tinnitus Hip TBI Skin Respiratory TDIU

Issues on Appeal

BackCervicalKneeHearing LossTinnitusHipTBISkin

Why It Was Decided This Way

In its July 1991 decision, the Board denied service connection for (1) defective hearing of the left ear, (2) residuals of an injury to the right index finger, (3) pseudofolliculitis barbae, and (4) a bilateral foot disorder; and denied an increased (compensable) disability rating for (1) a perianal abscess with periurethral extension, (2) recurrent lumbosacral strain, and (3) chronic vasomotor rhinitis with tinnitus.

Appellant's Claims The Court reviews the Board's findings of fact regarding new claims under a "clearly erroneous" standard of review.

Under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review, "if there is a 'plausible' basis in the record for the factual determinations of the BVA, even if this Court might not have reached the same factual determinations, [the Court] cannot overturn them.

§ 7104(a) (West 1991), and must provide a "written statement of [its] findings and conclusions, and the reasons or bases for those findings and conclusions, on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record," 38 U.

Moreover, the Board failed to discuss a VA physician's (Dr.

The Board's denial of service connection for a bilateral foot disorder is also not clearly erroneous.

The Board's denial of an increase in appellant's currently noncompensable service- connected lumbosacral strain condition is not clearly erroneous.

Regarding an increased (compensable) rating for rhinitis, the Board's decision is not clearly erroneous.

Authorities Cited

Amadeo v. ZantAnderson v. CityBagby v. DerwinskiBailey v. DerwinskiBledsoe v. DerwinskiBucklinger v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiCook v. BrownCorry v. DerwinskiEnvironmental Defense Fund v. CostleFallo v. DerwinskiFarless v. DerwinskiFoster v. DerwinskiGell v. HartmaxGilbert v. DerwinskiGleicher v. DerwinskiGrath v. BrownGrottveit v. BrownHatlestad v. DerwinskiHayes v. BrownHensley v. BrownHersey v. DerwinskiHines v. SecretaryHoag v. BrownHood v. DerwinskiHorowitz v. BrownHunt v. DerwinskiIn Young v. BrownIndustries v. NorthwayLovelace v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 1.964(a)38 CFR 20.200 (1992)38 CFR 3.303(a)38 CFR 3.303(b) (1992)38 CFR 3.30638 CFR 3.306 (1992)38 CFR 3.306(a)38 CFR 3.306(a) (1990)38 CFR 3.32438 CFR 3.324 (1988)38 CFR 3.38538 CFR 4.11838 CFR 4.1638 CFR 4.16(c)38 CFR 4.1738 CFR 4.2038 CFR 4.21 (1992)38 CFR 4.30(b)38 CFR 4.71a38 CFR 4.87a

Denial Type

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 →