CAVC Case 93-62: Psychiatric

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · January 26, 1995 · 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.

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
Affirmed / Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
January 26, 1995
Judge
NEBEKER, Chief Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PsychiatricBackHipHeartRespiratoryTDIUHypertension

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

PsychiatricBackHipHeartRespiratoryTDIUHypertension

Why It Was Decided This Way

In November 1982, the Board denied, on the following grounds, service connection for the veteran's heart disorder: Examinations prior to 1979 had not found evidence of left-side heart disease or traumatic injury to the heart; the IMO had stated that a traumatic injury would produce a segmental rather than a global dysfunction of the left ventricle; the infections in the veteran's lungs had been healed for many years; and he apparently had fairly good lung function at the time the cardiomyopathy was discovered.

In an August 1983 decision, the Board denied TDIU, finding that although the veteran's service-connected disabilities did cause an employment handicap they were not severe enough to preclude all forms of substantially gainful employment.

In July 1991, the RO denied DIC on the ground that the veteran's fatal heart and kidney problems were not service connected and that "[n]either is it shown that the veteran's [service-connected] .

In the December 8, 1992, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, finding that the preponderance of the evidence was against the claim.

However, a mere possibility does not warrant the application of the benefit of the doubt doctrine .

The Board concluded that cardiomyopathy and renal disease were the causes of death; that "[n]either cardiomyopathy nor renal disease was present in service or within a year thereof"; that 8 "[t]he veteran's service-connected disabilities did not combine in any way to cause his death, nor did they play a significant role in hastening his death"; and that "[t]he service-connected disorders did not cause or contribute substantially or materially to cause death.

The threshold of plausibility to make a claim well grounded is considerably lower than the threshold for new and material evidence to justify reopening a claim.

In the instant case, the appellant argues that the BVA failed to consider adequately the regulations on contribution of a service-connected condition to the cause of death.

Authorities Cited

Abernathy v. PrincipiAustin v. BrownEspiritu v. DerwinskiFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiHayes v. BrownIsenhart v. DerwinskiLittke v. DerwinskiMasors v. DerwinskiMurphy v. DerwinskiQuiamco v. BrownSchafrath v. DerwinskiSee Gabrielson v. BrownSee Grottveit v. BrownSee Robinette v. BrownSee Satchel v. DerwinskiSheets v. DerwinskiTirpak v. DerwinskiZevalkink v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 20.1106 (1994)38 CFR 20.901(a)38 CFR 3.31038 CFR 3.310(a) (1994)38 CFR 3.31238 CFR 3.312 (1994)38 CFR 3.312(a)38 CFR 3.312(c)38 CFR 3.5(a) (1994)38 CFR 4.16 (1994)38 CFR 4.25 (1994)38 USC 131038 USC 5101(b)38 USC 5107(a)38 USC 5121(a)38 USC 5121(c)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7261(a)(1)

Denial Type

Credibility|Not Service Connected|Not New Material|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.