CAVC Case 93-985: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · July 14, 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
BackShoulderSkinDiabetesEyeArthritisHypertension
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
BackShoulderSkinDiabetesEyeArthritisHypertension
Why It Was Decided This Way
This case presents the Court with three related questions: (1) Whether this claim was well grounded when only "hearsay" medical evidence (the appellant's statement as to what his physician told him) was offered to show a nexus between the current disability and the appellant's period of service; (2) whether, in view of the Court's finding that this claim was not well grounded, the Secretary nevertheless owed a duty to the appellant; and (3) whether, under the particular facts of this case, the Secretary fulfilled that duty to this appellant.
In the August 1993 decision here on appeal (which adjudicated only the diabetes claim), the Board determined, without analysis, that the claim was well grounded and that "all reasonable efforts have been made in helping the veteran prove his claim".
The Board found that the first evidence of the veteran's diabetes came four years after discharge in a 1967 diagnosis.
The Board did not refer to the veteran's November 1990 letter recounting his physician's feeling that his diabetes "MOST PROBABLY" had existed at the time of his discharge, and found that the preponderance of the evidence was against the claim.
<New and material evidence' is, by its nature, well-grounded, i.
Nor can the veteran meet the "new and material evidence" burden of 38 [U.
While such a statement may trigger [VA's] duty to assist to contact a physician in an appropriate case, see Ivey v.
In any event, because the issue in Warren was whether new and material evidence was present to reopen a claim, the Warren holding does not necessarily control the outcome of the issue in the present case -- 8 whether the medical evidence of etiology required under Heuer and Grottveit for purposes of satisfying the requirement for submitting a well-grounded claim may be satisfied by the veteran's statement of what a physician told him as to the etiology of the veteran's diabetes.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|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 →