CAVC Case 92-622: Depression

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 6, 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.

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
Affirmed / Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
March 6, 1995
Judge
NEBEKER, Chief Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

DepressionBackCervicalHearing LossShoulderHipAnkleHeadacheHeartDiabetes

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

DepressionBackCervicalHearing LossShoulderHipAnkleHeadache

Why It Was Decided This Way

The appellant has filed a brief requesting that the Court vacate the Board's decision denying his claims for back condition and arthritis, reverse the Board's finding that the evidence submitted to support his claim was not new and material, and reverse the Board's decision that the issue of the residuals of the right-ankle fracture was not properly before the Board for review.

In January 1990, the RO denied reopening of those claims, concluding that "[t]he evidence is new and material but does not establish a new factual basis for a grant of S[ervice] C[onnection]".

A January 1991 VA letter informed the veteran that his claims had been denied because "the evidence is new and material but does not provide a new factual basis for service connection for back condition, [and] arthritis".

In the January 9, 1992, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board found that, as to the claim of entitlement to service connection for the veteran's right ankle, the matter was not properly before it for appellate review, and "referred [that matter] to the attention of the [RO] for further consideration".

As to the back and arthritis service-connection claims, the Board found that no new and material evidence to reopen those claims had been presented or secured since the time of the March 1988 final RO decision and did not reopen the claims.

§ 5108, the Secretary must reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim when "new and material evidence" is presented or secured with respect to that claim.

The Board must first determine whether the evidence presented or secured since the prior final disallowance of the claim is "new and material" when viewed in the context of all the evidence.

A Board determination as to whether evidence is "new and material" is a question of law subject to de novo review in this Court under 38 U.

Authorities Cited

Austin v. BrownDuran v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiGodwin v. DerwinskiGrottveit v. BrownHatlestad v. DerwinskiIn Bernard v. BrownIvey v. DerwinskiJustus v. PrincipiKightly v. BrownMagana v. BrownManio v. DerwinskiMyers v. DerwinskiQuarles v. DerwinskiReonal v. BrownRobinette v. BrownSanchez v. DerwinskiSee Chisem v. BrownSee Colvin v. DerwinskiSee Cornele v. BrownSee Hamilton v. BrownSee Lathan v. BrownSee Littke v. DerwinskiSee Masors v. DerwinskiSee Moray v. BrownSee Thurber v. BrownSuttmann v. BrownWilson v. DerwinskiYabut v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.182 (1991)38 CFR 19.182(a)38 CFR 19.31 (1994)38 CFR 19.38 (1994)38 CFR 19.938 CFR 19.9 (1994)38 CFR 20.20038 CFR 20.714(a)(2)(1994)38 CFR 3.303(a)38 CFR 3.303(b)38 CFR 3.303(d) (1994)38 CFR 3.30738 USC 1101(3)38 USC 111038 USC 50138 USC 510838 USC 7104(b)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7105(b)(1)38 USC 7261(a)(1)

Denial Type

Credibility|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.