CAVC Case 92-473: Psychiatric
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · February 16, 1994 · 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
PsychiatricBackTDIURadiculopathy
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
PsychiatricBackTDIURadiculopathy
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant contends that the BVA failed to support its decision with sufficient reasons or bases, and that the Secretary failed to fulfill his duty to assist.
The VA asserts, however, that the Board decision was sufficiently supported and that no duty to assist ever arose because claims regarding a higher disability rating for the appellant's service-connected injury and service connection for a psychiatric disability were not properly before the Board.
We find that the appellant submitted a well-grounded claim as to each of the claims before the Board, but that the Secretary failed to comply with his duty to assist the appellant.
Furthermore, based upon the Secretary's failure to comply with the duty to assist, we find that the claim regarding reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses was improperly denied by the Board.
Additionally, we find that the claims regarding an increased rating for the service-connected 2 disability were properly before the Board, and that the Board failed in its duty to assist the appellant in this regard as well.
On April 23, 1990, the rating board denied service connection for the mechanical saw injury to the right wrist, finding that the injury was not the proximate result of the appellant's service-connected disability.
Rather, the Board found that the injury was caused by the appellant's distraction.
In addition, the Board found that while the appellant's service-connected disability produced lack of protective sensation in the area of the fourth and fifth fingers extending on that side to the hand and wrist, the wound from the saw was to the thumb side of the wrist.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not Service Connected|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 →