CAVC Case 93-419: Psychiatric
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 2, 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
PsychiatricBackShoulderHeadacheTBIHeartEyeArthritisRadiculopathy
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
PsychiatricBackShoulderHeadacheTBIHeartEyeArthritis
Why It Was Decided This Way
In balancing the evidence, the Board found the absence of objective evidence documenting multiple sclerosis during service or within the seven-year presumption period following service more persuasive than evidence favorable to appellant's claim.
The Secretary filed a motion for remand based on three reasons: the Board's failure to fulfill its duty to assist in developing the record, the reliance of the Board on extra-record medical treatises, and the Secretary's belief that the evidence presents a "medically complex factual scenario" requiring further medical evaluation.
The Board denied appellant's claim for service connection for multiple sclerosis on February 17, 1993, on a finding that the negative evidence preponderated against his claim, but without articulating what negative evidence formed the basis for this conclusion.
The Board failed to rely on any evidence other than its own unsubstantiated opinion that appellant's in-service hospitalization was devoid of any neurological problems.
Neils, the Board concluded: [Appellant] was examined and treated by Dr.
Here, the 6 Board concluded that "in the medical records, there is no evidence of any complaints indicative of multiple sclerosis until at least 1966.
The Board was clearly erroneous in discrediting the opinions of appellant's physicians and substituting its own unsubstantiated medical conclusions for those of appellant's physicians.
The Board appears to have relied principally on the fact that certain evidence was submitted after the appellant filed his claim not only to accord less credibility and probative value to that evidence, but also to discredit the highly probative first-hand statement of Dr.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam
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 →