CAVC Case 93-1111: Depression

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 26, 1995 · 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
Affirmed / Vacated / Denied / Reversed / Remanded
Decision Date
June 26, 1995
Judge
FARLEY
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackHipHeadacheEyeRadiculopathy

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

DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackHipHeadacheEyeRadiculopathy

Why It Was Decided This Way

A February 2, 1988, VA letter, notifying the veteran that her appeal period had expired and that new and material evidence was needed to reopen her claim, was sent to her at the Washington, D.

A March 1990 RO decision confirmed and continued the May 1983 denial of service connection for a nervous condition, concluding that these records did not constitute new and material evidence.

The Board found that the evidence submitted since the last denial in February 1988 was new and material and that, when considered with evidence previously of record, reasonably established that the disorder had its onset during service.

In the September 1993 Board decision here on appeal, the Board denied entitlement to an effective date prior to February 1, 1989, for the award of service connection for schizophrenia, paranoid type.

The Board found that the RO denials of service connection for a psychiatric disorder in May 1983, February 1985, and February 1988 were final, and that the veteran had been notified of each decision at her latest address of record, but that she had not filed or completed timely appeals from any of these decision.

The Board concluded that there had been no showing of CUE in any of these RO decisions, and that the effective date for the current 100% rating was the date of receipt of the claim to reopen.

She contends that when the RO previously decided her case, it did not consider all the evidence then of record.

To comply with this requirement, the Board's statement of reasons or bases must account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, analyze the credibility and probative value of all material evidence submitted by and on behalf of a claimant, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any such evidence.

Authorities Cited

Abernathy v. PrincipiAshley v. DerwinskiBailey v. DerwinskiBernard v. BrownBlock v. BrownBond v. BrownChute v. DerwinskiCollins v. PrincipiCuevas v. PrincipiDavis v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiGodwin v. DerwinskiHamilton v. BrownHatlestad v. DerwinskiHermann v. BrownMasors v. DerwinskiPorter v. BrownQuarles v. DerwinskiRosler v. DerwinskiRowell v. PrincipiRoy v. BrownSaylock v. DerwinskiSee Beaty v. BrownSee Corry v. DerwinskiSee Gabrielson v. BrownSee Mindenhall v. BrownSee Russell v. PrincipiSee Schafrath v. DerwinskiSee Schleis v. PrincipiSimon v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.30(a)38 CFR 19.32 (1994)38 CFR 20.200 (1994)38 CFR 20.20138 CFR 20.201 (1994)38 CFR 20.30038 CFR 20.302(a) (1994)38 CFR 20.302(b) (1994)38 CFR 20.702(c)(2)38 CFR 3.105(a) (1994)38 CFR 3.109(b)38 CFR 3.109(b) (1994)38 CFR 3.303(a) (1994)38 CFR 3.400(b)(2)38 CFR 4.40 (1991)38 USC 5104(a)38 USC 5110(a)38 USC 5110(b)(2)38 USC 7104(a)38 USC 7104(d)(1)

Denial Type

Credibility|Not New Material|Cue

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.