CAVC Case 93-493: Anxiety

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · February 4, 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.

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
Vacated
Decision Date
February 4, 1994
Judge
FARLEY
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

AnxietyPsychiatricBackCervicalShoulderHipHeadacheSkinRespiratoryGI

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

AnxietyPsychiatricBackCervicalShoulderHipHeadacheSkin

Why It Was Decided This Way

§ 5107(a), that "the facts relevant to the issue on appeal have been properly and adequately developed", and that VA had complied with its statutory duty to assist.

Warner's statements that in May 1984 he had recommended that the veteran undergo an HIV blood test, the Board noted that "HIV testing was not available in 1984, as noted in several documents of record.

at 305), the Board concluded that "the veteran's visit .

Fernandez's August 1992 statement that the veteran had suffered from ARC in 1985, the Board noted that, when he was asked to provide records upon which that statement was based, Dr.

11 The Board noted that, although the December 1988 HIV serology laboratory slip from the Alabama Department of Public Health indicated that the veteran had been found to be HIV positive (and diagnosed with ARC) in 1985, "[a]ctual test results from 1985 are not in the file, and the veteran did not reply to the RO's request to identify where any 1985 HIV test was taken.

Warner's assessment that HIV infection occurred in service, the Board noted that the SMRs were negative for any complaints or findings of night sweats or adenopathy during service.

Swinger's April 1992 statement, the Board noted that his opinion that the veteran's had experienced a "six to eight week-long viral syndrome in late 1982" that was "significantly associated with initial HIV infection" was not supported by the SMRs, which show only "gastrointestinal complaints of about two weeks['] duration in September 1982", and which document "a long history of the same complaints throughout childhood".

The Board concluded: [T]he various medical statements supporting the veteran's claim are based on a history that is not credible.

Authorities Cited

Abernathy v. DerwinskiBucklinger v. BrownCaldwell v. DerwinskiColvin v. DerwinskiFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiHanson v. DerwinskiHatlestad v. DerwinskiKern v. BrownLittke v. DerwinskiMasors v. DerwinskiQuarles v. DerwinskiRogozinski v. DerwinskiSammarco v. DerwinskiSee Simon v. DerwinskiSee Suttmann v. BrownSee Thurber v. BrownSmith v. DerwinskiTirpak v. DerwinskiWillis v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 3.1(m)38 CFR 3.303(a) (1993)38 CFR 3.307(c) (1993)38 USC 101(16)38 USC 105(a)38 USC 5107(a)38 USC 7104(a)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 710938 USC 7252(b)38 USC 7261(a)(4)38 USC 7268(b)(1)

Denial Type

Credibility|Preponderance Against|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 →
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.