CAVC Case 92-144: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · October 7, 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.

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
Granted / Affirmed
Decision Date
October 7, 1993
Judge
FARLEY
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSDDepressionPsychiatricBackHipEye

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

PTSDDepressionPsychiatricBackHipEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

MANKIN, Judge: Joe Elkins appeals the October 16, 1991, Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) decision which determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

In February 1968, the Board denied service connection for a psychiatric condition, stating that schizophrenia was not diagnosed until two years after service.

The Board noted that appellant was treated for globus hystericus in May 1956.

On October 16, 1991, the Board found that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen appellant's claim for service connection.

§ 5108 (West 1991), a previously disallowed claim may be reopened only when "new and material" evidence is presented.

Whether evidence submitted to reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim is new and material is a question of law which the Court reviews de novo.

The Board determined that these letters were new, but not material.

Appellant's factual contentions have been considered previously by the RO and BVA, and they cannot be accepted as "new and material" evidence simply because they now form the basis of a medical opinion.

Authorities Cited

Bernard v. BrownCamphor v. BrownChipego v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiCox v. BrownCuevas v. PrincipiFluker v. BrownGoodsell v. BrownGuerrieri v. BrownHadsell v. BrownJustus v. PrincipiManio v. DerwinskiReonal v. BrownRogozinski v. DerwinskiRowell v. PrincipiSee Bethea v. DerwinskiSee Gilbert v. DerwinskiSee Justus v. PrincipiSee Masors v. DerwinskiSee Reonal v. BrownSee Thompson v. DerwinskiSklar v. BrownSwann v. BrownTriplette v. Principi

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 USC 1101(3)38 USC 510838 USC 7104(b)38 USC 7252(a)38 USC 7252(b)38 USC 7261(a)(1)

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|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.