CAVC Case 93-686: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · November 1, 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.
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
BackHipAnkleHeartDiabetesTDIUEyeArthritisHypertension
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
BackHipAnkleHeartDiabetesTDIUEyeArthritis
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant filed an appeal claiming that VA did not address the issue of his entitlement to a 100% rating from February 1990.
Claims for Increased Rating for Osteomyelitis and Fusion of the Right Ankle The Court reviews the Board's findings of fact regarding new claims under a "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
Under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review, "if there is a `plausible' basis in the record for the factual determinations of the BVA, even if this Court might not have reached the same factual determinations, [the Court] cannot overturn them.
§ 7104(a), and must provide a "written statement of [its] findings and conclusions, and the reasons or bases for those findings and conclusions, on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record," 38 U.
6 Where the record does not adequately reveal the current state of the appellant's disability and the claim is well grounded, the fulfillment of the statutory duty to assist under 38 U.
The Court finds that a remand is necessary so the Board, prior to determining whether rating increases are warranted for the osteomyelitis and the right ankle fusion with arthrodesis, can obtain a contemporaneous medical examination, to include a medical opinion as to (1) how the right ankle fusion relates to the osteomyelitis of the ankle; (2) whether the ankle fusion is a separate condition from the osteomyelitis; (3) the degree of plantar flexion or dorsiflexion in the ankylosed right ankle, pursuant to 38 C.
No medical opinion exists in the record indicating that 7 these are not constitutional problems, and that they are not related to osteomyelitis.
Thus, the Court holds that a remand is necessary in order that VA may obtain a medical examination determining whether, pursuant to 38 C.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
No Nexus|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 →