CAVC Case 92-653: Psychiatric

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · December 20, 1994 · KRAMER

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.

Rating Married Children

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)

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

See your full claim picture — free

Outcome

Unknown

Decision Date

December 20, 1994

Judge

KRAMER

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

Psychiatric Back Tinnitus Hip Eye Radiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

PsychiatricBackTinnitusHipEyeRadiculopathy

Why It Was Decided This Way

Bielby (appellant) appeals a March 3, 1992, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) determining that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim.

The appellant claims the BVA erred in determining that the newly submitted evidence was not new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim.

We hold, however, that the evidence presented by the appellant is both new and material.

h service or the presumptive period of the appellant's symptoms or concurrent neurologic signs, the Board denied the appellant's claim in December 1986.

An August 1991 rating decision continued to find that new and material evidence had not been submitted.

§ 5108 provides that a previously and finally disallowed claim may be reopened where new and material evidence has been presented.

In order to determine if a claimant has presented new and material evidence, the Board must conduct a two-step analysis.

Whether newly submitted evidence is new and material is a question of law which this Court reviews de novo.

Authorities Cited

Austin v. BrownBlack v. BrownBrown v. ParkerBurns v. SecretaryCalhoun v. Honda Motor CoColvin v. DerwinskiCox v. BrownDaubert v. Merrell Dow PharmaceuticalsElkins v. BrownFugo v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiJaneway v. SecretaryJean v. NelsonJustus v. PrincipiLorme v. SullivanManio v. DerwinskiMasors v. DerwinskiPaller v. PrincipiRussell v. PrincipiSee Embrey v. BowenSee Flynn v. BrownSee Gamer v. SecretarySee Gobber v. DerwinskiSwann v. BrownThurber v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 20.90138 CFR 3.102 (1993)38 CFR 3.103(a)38 CFR 3.103(b)38 CFR 3.105(a) (1993)38 CFR 3.105(a)(1993)38 CFR 3.303 (1993)38 CFR 3.303(a)38 CFR 3.303(b)38 CFR 3.307 (1993)38 CFR 3.307(b)38 CFR 3.307(c)38 CFR 3.309 (1993)38 CFR 3.32838 CFR 3.328 (1993)38 USC 111238 USC 113138 USC 1154(b)38 USC 510738 USC 5108

Denial Type

Credibility|Not New Material|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 →