CAVC Case 93-1213: Depression

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · October 5, 1995 · MANKIN

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

October 5, 1995

Judge

MANKIN

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

Depression Anxiety Psychiatric Back Hip TDIU Eye Radiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackHipTDIUEyeRadiculopathy

Why It Was Decided This Way

In the September 1993 BVA decision here on appeal, the Board denied entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes based on a finding that the veteran's March 24, 1983, injuries were due to his own willful misconduct under 38 U.

To comply with this requirement, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of all material evidence favorable to the veteran.

If the medical evidence of record is insufficient, or, in the opinion of the BVA, of doubtful weight or credibility, the BVA is always free to supplement the record by seeking an advisory opinion, ordering a medical examination or [quoting] recognized treatises".

The Court reviews BVA factfinding under a "clearly erroneous" standard; "if there is a <plausible' basis in the record for the factual determinations of the BVA, .

The Court notes that the BVA did not address whether the veteran's disability -- total blindness -- causes him to be permanently and totally disabled.

The Secretary contends that the Board appropriately did not address 38 C.

In its September 1993 BVA decision, the Board denied entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for VA pension purposes based on a finding that the veteran's March 24, 1983, injuries were due to his own willful misconduct under 38 U.

The Board found that on March 24, 1983, "the veteran [had] shot himself in the head 9 resulting in blindness in both eyes", that under 38 C.

Authorities Cited

Austin v. BrownBrown v. DerwinskiColvin v. DerwinskiDemarest v. ManspeakerEspiritu v. DerwinskiGabrielson v. BrownGardner v. BrownGardner v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGriffin v. Oceanic ContractorsGrottveit v. BrownHatlestad v. DerwinskiHill v. PrincipiHood v. BrownHyder v. DerwinskiIn Cropper v. BrownKarnas v. DerwinskiKimberlin v. BrownLedford v. DerwinskiMasors v. DerwinskiRabideau v. DerwinskiRoberts v. DerwinskiSee Caluza v. BrownSee Lathan v. BrownSee Moray v. BrownSee Simon v. DerwinskiSheets v. DerwinskiShipwash v. BrownTalley v. DerwinskiThurber v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 2.1174 (1938)38 CFR 20.901(a)38 CFR 3.1(n)38 CFR 3.1(n)(1)38 CFR 3.3(a)(3) (1994)38 CFR 3.301(b)38 CFR 3.301(b) (1994)38 CFR 3.30238 CFR 3.302 (1994)38 CFR 3.314(b)(2) (1994)38 CFR 3.34038 CFR 3.353(a)38 CFR 3.353(a) (1994)38 CFR 3.35438 CFR 3.354(a)38 CFR 3.354(a) (1994)38 CFR 3.38538 CFR 3.80738 CFR 4.3138 USC 1521

Denial Type

Credibility

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 →