CAVC Case 92-1227: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · November 28, 1995 · 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.
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
BackHeartRespiratoryHypertension
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
BackHeartRespiratoryHypertension
Why It Was Decided This Way
In its discussion of the reasons or bases for its decision, the Board noted that, with the exception of "a single elevated blood pressure reading of 132/94", SMRs were negative for signs of heart disease.
Where the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence of a nexus between a current condition and an in-service disease or injury is required to fulfill the well-grounded-claim requirement of section 5107(a), and a lay person is not competent to provide such medical evidence.
Thus, while the Brammer/Rabideau requirement for medical evidence of the existence of the claimed condition (heart disease) was met, the Heuer/Grottveit requirement for medical evidence of a nexus to service (of heart disease directly or secondary to asthma) was not met.
Because the appellant did not present medical evidence of a nexus between the veteran's heart disease and his service, or medical evidence that the veteran's service-connected asthma caused or contributed to his heart disorder, the Court holds that the Board correctly found that the appellant's DIC claim was not well grounded.
Karen", because even if the appellant had presented a statement from a physician to the effect that the veteran had had a heart attack "10, 20, 30 years maybe more" before 1981, such a statement would not provide a nexus with the veteran's service from December 1942 to November 1943.
Thirty years before 1981 would still be many years after the veteran's separation from service, and an equivocal statement such as "maybe more" would not provide a nexus to service and would thus not justify a belief that the claim is plausible.
Brown, the Court held: [B]efore the BVA relies, in rendering a decision on a claim, on any evidence developed or obtained by it subsequent to the issuance of the most recent [Statement of the Case (SOC)] or [Supplemental (SOC)] with respect to such claim, the BVA must provide a claimant with reasonable notice of such evidence and of the reliance proposed to be placed on it and a reasonable opportunity for the claimant to respond to it.
§ 5107(a) duty to assist to seek to obtain medical records of treatment by "Dr.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
No Nexus|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 →