CAVC Case 93-644: Depression

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · April 14, 1995 · KRAMER

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
Dismissed / Affirmed / Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
April 14, 1995
Judge
KRAMER
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackKneeHipHeadacheHeartRespiratoryGI

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

DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackKneeHipHeadacheHeart

Why It Was Decided This Way

In February 1987, the RO confirmed its October 1986 denial of service connection for heart disease, finding that the evidence submitted was "not new and material".

In the May 24, 1993, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board found that the claims for entitlement to service connection for heart disease, CVA, and lupus were all well grounded under 38 U.

With respect to reopening the claim for service connection for heart disease, the Board found that new and material evidence had not been submitted because evidence received since the final December 1981 Board decision "did not bear directly on whether heart disease had its onset in service".

The Board found "no indication that further evidence could be obtained which would assist in the development of [the veteran's] claim".

With respect to lupus, the Board found that it had not "manifested during active service or for more than 30 years following final service discharge", and thus was neither incurred in nor aggravated by active service.

The Board noted that the veteran's contention that at one time he had records which reflected that his blood was monitored for a six-week period during active service for unknown substances did not establish that he had lupus during service.

With respect to CVA, the Board found that the "evidence does not show that any cerebral vascular disorder existed during service, that the lupus anticoagulant, the cause of the [CVA], was not clinically identified until May 1989"; and that, therefore, the CVA had not "occur[red] due to a disability manifested 9 during active service", and thus was "neither incurred in nor aggravated by active service".

With respect to the ulcer and anxiety conditions, the Board concluded that an increased rating to 40% was warranted, and granted it as a combined rating for both the ulcer and the anxiety.

Authorities Cited

Abernathy v. PrincipiAustin v. BrownBernard v. Brown Prejudice Standard In BernardBond v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiCurry v. BrownDuran v. BrownFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGobber v. DerwinskiGodwin v. DerwinskiGrottveit v. BrownHatlestad v. DerwinskiJustus v. PrincipiLasovick v. BrownLittke v. DerwinskiMagana v. BrownManio v. DerwinskiMassey v. BrownOhland v. DerwinskiPeyton v. DerwinskiQuarles v. DerwinskiRogozinski v. DerwinskiSchafrath v. DerwinskiSee Brannon v. DerwinskiSee Counts v. BrownSee Gabrielson v. BrownSee Isenhart v. DerwinskiSee Ivey v. DerwinskiSee Lathan v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 17.10038 CFR 17.100(b)38 CFR 17.100(b)(2) (1994)38 CFR 17.8038 CFR 20.901(a)38 CFR 3.105(a)38 CFR 3.105(a) (1994)38 CFR 3.159 (1994)38 CFR 4.11438 CFR 4.13238 CFR 4.2 (1994)38 CFR 4.338 USC 11138 USC 111 (a)38 USC 111(b)(1)38 USC 172838 USC 510738 USC 5107(a)38 USC 5107(b)38 USC 5108

Denial Type

Credibility|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 →
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.