CAVC Case 91-1948: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · August 6, 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.

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)
RatingMonthly (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
Vacated / Denied
Decision Date
August 6, 1993
Judge
NEBEKER, Chief Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackKneeHipTBIGITDIU

Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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

PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackKneeHipTBI

Why It Was Decided This Way

Because the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its denial of service connection for the cause of the veteran's death and for its conclusion that the veteran was entitled to no more than a 30% evaluation for his service-connected PTSD, and also failed to consider whether the veteran was entitled to a total rating based on individual unemployability, the decision will be vacated and the matter remanded for readjudication consistent with this opinion.

In a decision dated July 19, 1991, the Board denied service connection for the cause of the veteran's death and granted the veteran a 30% evaluation for PTSD for accrued benefits purposes.

In defining what constitutes a "contributory cause of death," VA regulations provide: Contributory cause of death is inherently one not related to the principal cause.

In denying service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, the Board found as fact that "[t]he veteran's death on December 16, 1988, was the overwhelming result of carcinoma of the liver"; that "[c]arcinoma of the liver was not shown in active service, but initially manifested many years thereafter and was not causally related to a service-connected disability"; and that "[t]he service connected disabilities did not contribute materially in producing the veteran's death.

As its reasons or bases for its findings and conclusions, the Board noted: .

If the medical evidence of record is insufficient, or, in the opinion of the BVA, of doubtful weight or credibility, the BVA is always free to supplement the record by seeking an advisory opinion, ordering a medical examination or citing recognized medical treatises in its decisions that clearly support its ultimate conclusions.

Thus, while the Board is not required to accept the medical authority supporting a claim, it must provide its reasons for rejecting such evidence and, more importantly, must provide a medical basis other than its own unsubstantiated conclusions to support its ultimate decision.

In order for the Court to determine whether the BVA's factual findings related to cause of death are clearly erroneous, the Board must ensure that its findings are adequately explained and sufficiently supported by the evidence of record.

Authorities Cited

Archer v. PrincipiBudnik v. DerwinskiColvin v. DerwinskiCosman v. PrincipiFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGrottveit v. BrownHatlestad v. DerwinskiHood v. BrownLittke v. DerwinskiLovelace v. DerwinskiMurphy v. DerwinskiQuarles v. DerwinskiRussell v. PrincipiSee Shoemaker v. DerwinskiSee Tripp v. DerwinskiSee Villalobos v. PrincipiSimon v. DerwinskiTirpak v. DerwinskiTobin v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.182(a)38 CFR 3.1000(c)38 CFR 3.1000(c) (1992)38 CFR 3.312(a) (1992)38 CFR 3.312(b) (1992)38 CFR 3.312(c)(1) (1992)38 CFR 3.312(c)(4) (1992)38 CFR 4.1 (1992)38 CFR 4.13238 CFR 4.16(a) (1992)38 CFR 4.16(b) (1992)38 CFR 4.16(c)38 USC 4009 (1988)38 USC 5107(a)38 USC 5121(a)(2)38 USC 5121(c)38 USC 7252(a)

Denial Type

Credibility|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 →
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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.