CAVC Case 91-861: Psychiatric
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 22, 1993 · 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
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
PsychiatricHeadacheEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Court holds that appellant did not submit new and material evidence to warrant the reopening of his claim which had been the subject of previous final denials.
In a letter dated April 12, 1985, the RO reminded appellant that his claim had been the subject of a previous final denial and advised him that in order to reopen his claim he must submit new and material evidence which demonstrates that the injury for which he claimed entitlement to service connection was incurred in or aggravated by his military service.
Joseph's Hospital, the letter advised that "evidence of the current status of a disability for which service connection has been denied is not new and material evidence.
In response to the RO's April 12, 1985, invitation to submit new and material evidence, appellant submitted statements from treating physicians, family members, and friends, which described appellant's personality changes after service.
Current nervous condition is not related to previous head injury.
The RO confirmed and continued the previous denials, ruling that the submissions did not constitute new and material evidence warranting the reopening of appellant's claim.
171 (1991), concluded in the DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION section that the Coash and Pharis statements were new and material.
The Board then denied the claim on the merits, ruling that the new and material "evidence did not establish a new factual basis warranting an allowance of service connection for a cerebral contusion.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
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 →