CAVC Case 91-87: Back

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · December 3, 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.

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
Reversed / Vacated / Denied
Decision Date
December 3, 1992
Judge
FARLEY
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackCervicalKneeShoulderHipSkinTDIUEyeArthritisRadiculopathy

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

BackCervicalKneeShoulderHipSkinTDIUEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

The Court holds that the Board's determination that the evidence most recently submitted by the veteran was not "new and material" was correct.

At the hearing, a member of the rating board noted that among the evidence before the VA was a letter from a physician dated July 16, 1947, which showed that the veteran had "external otitis.

The Chairman of the RO rating board noted that the VA acknowledged "that [the veteran] had treatment for a skin condition in service" but that "it was not the [r]ating [b]oard's opinion that the skin condition he had in service was, in fact, psoriasis, and the [BVA] felt the same way, and they said that psoriasis was not diagnosed until 1970.

On February 11, 1981, the rating board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a skin condition.

In so doing, the Board found that [i]n the absence of any .

A member of the rating board pointed out that in order to reopen a claim for service connection for a skin condition now that the BVA had denied the claim twice, the veteran would have to present new and material evidence.

Davis that the veteran's psoriasis began as dermatitis around the ears, would be new and material evidence since that report had not been before the BVA.

The BVA found that the veteran's statements, a copy of a news article regarding the veteran (which is not of record), and a report from the National Personnel Records Center indicating that no additional pertinent records are available did not constitute new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the veteran's claim of service connection for a skin disorder which had been denied by the BVA in June 1980 and 9 December 1981 and by the agency of original jurisdiction in March 1983.

Authorities Cited

Blanchard v. DerwinskiChisem v. PrincipiColvin v. DerwinskiFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiIn Colvin v. DerwinskiJones v. DerwinskiMasors v. DerwinskiRussell v. PrincipiSee Manio v. DerwinskiSmith v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 3.105(a)38 CFR 3.105(a) (1991)38 USC 510838 USC 7104(b)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7252(a)38 USC 7261(a)(1)

Denial Type

Not New Material

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.