CAVC Case 93-1098: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · April 13, 1995 · 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.
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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackHipHeartDiabetesRespiratoryGI
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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackHipHeartDiabetesRespiratory
Why It Was Decided This Way
Barnett, appeals a September 13, 1993, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) which found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen her claim for service connection for the cause of the death of her husband, veteran Boyd Barnett.
156 (1990) which pertains to new and material evidence in his presentation to the Board, the Board nevertheless remanded the case in December 1990 for the RO to issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) presenting the laws on finality of decisions.
The RO did not discuss the evidence according to the new and material evidence requirements.
Nevertheless, the appellant's representative argued to the BVA in January 1993 that new and material evidence had been presented.
In its September 1993 decision, the Board concluded that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claim.
She argues that because the RO adjudicated the appellant's claim on the merits and failed to apply the new and material evidence standard, the BVA had authority only to consider the merits of the claim.
She also argues that the appellant did not have notice about the 4 new and material evidence issue and that she was prejudiced by the BVA's review of her claim under the new and material evidence standard.
First, Congress has mandated that a previously denied claim may not be reopened in the absence of new and material evidence.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
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 →