CAVC Case 93-288: Anxiety
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · November 21, 1994 · 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.
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
AnxietyPsychiatricBackShoulderAnkleSkinTDIURadiculopathy
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
AnxietyPsychiatricBackShoulderAnkleSkinTDIURadiculopathy
Why It Was Decided This Way
In a June 24, 1985, decision, the RO denied reopening of both the TDIU and chest-condition claims because new and material evidence had not been presented.
at 194), but did not address the veteran's claim to "reopen" the TDIU claim.
In February 1988, the RO denied "reopening" of the claim, finding that the veteran had not submitted new and material evidence.
At the hearing, the hearing officer stated that the issues on appeal were, inter alia, entitlement to an increased nervous-condition rating, to an increased left-ankle rating, and to TDIU, and the question whether new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the chest-condition claim for service connection.
In an October 1991 decision, the Board found that the March 1987 claim had not been appealed within one year after the RO decision of April 1987, but remanded the matter to the RO for it to determine whether, pursuant to 38 C.
In a March 1992 written presentation submitted to the Board, the veteran's representative asserted that the VBC's failure to inform the veteran of the impending NOD time-limit expiration might have constituted a violation of the duty to assist.
Addressing the possible failure of the duty to assist, the BVA stated that the duty to assist does not concern the actual filing of a claim, but concerns only "developing facts pertinent to the claim".
The Court further held in Quarles that "[r]esolution of the question of whether the Board accurately determined the effective date requires the Court to decide whether the Board erred in its factfinding.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
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 →