CAVC Case 93-1220: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · August 1, 1996 · 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.

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

Affirmed / Vacated / Remanded

Decision Date

August 1, 1996

Judge

NEBEKER, Chief Judge

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSD Depression Psychiatric Back Shoulder Hip Skin Arthritis Radiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

PTSDDepressionPsychiatricBackShoulderHipSkinArthritis

Why It Was Decided This Way

In a September 1978 BVA decision, the Board denied service connection for a back disability.

The Board found that the veteran "was treated for an acute and transitory episode of low back pain in January 1957 during active service", and that "[t]here was no etiologic relationship between the herniated disc and the veteran's period of active service.

Thereafter, in November 1978, the RO denied service connection for both the back and nervous conditions, without mentioning the issue of new and material evidence.

In January 1990, the RO informed the veteran that his submissions had previously been considered; that therefore no action could be taken on his request to reopen; and that new and material evidence was required to reopen his claim.

In the August 1993 BVA decision here on appeal, the Board denied reopening of the service- connection claims for back and neuropsychiatric disorders, and denied an increased (compensable) rating for "scars, left hand".

As to the back claim, the Board found that evidence submitted since the January 1990 RO letter was not new and material.

As to the neuropsychiatric claim, the Board found that evidence submitted since the September 1990 final RO decision was not new and material.

As to the left-hand increased-rating claim, the Board found that the 9 schedular criteria for a compensable evaluation were not met.

Authorities Cited

Ashley v. DerwinskiBell v. DerwinskiBlackburn v. BrownCaffrey v. BrownCaluza v. BrownChute v. DerwinskiDavis v. BrownDuran v. BrownEdenfield v. BrownFletcher v. DerwinskiGlynn v. BrownGraves v. BrownHauck v. BrownHeuer v. BrownJustus v. PrincipiManio v. DerwinskiMindenhall v. BrownMoray v. BrownMorris v. SullivanQuarles v. DerwinskiRussell v. PrincipiSchafrath v. DerwinskiSee Allday v. BrownSee Annoni v. BrownSee Colvin v. DerwinskiSee Esteban v. BrownSee Falzone v. BrownSee Gabrielson v. BrownSee Masors v. DerwinskiSee Shipwash v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.9 (1995)38 CFR 3.105(a)38 CFR 3.160(e) (1995)38 CFR 4.1 (1995)38 CFR 4.11838 CFR 4.14 (1995)38 CFR 4.2 (1993)38 CFR 4.4838 CFR 4.7338 CFR 4.73 (1995)38 USC 115538 USC 510138 USC 5107(a)38 USC 510838 USC 5110(a)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7104(e)38 USC 7105(b)(1)38 USC 7261(a)(1)

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|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 →