CAVC Case 93-992: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · February 7, 1995 · MANKIN
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
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
BackHearing LossTinnitusEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
Heuer, appeals, through counsel, a June 16, 1993, Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) decision finding that the veteran had not submitted new and material evidence and thus denying the reopening of his claim for service connection for right-ear hearing loss.
In the June 16, 1993, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board determined that the evidence presented by the veteran was new but was not material because the 1971 and 1979 audiograms did not provide the required nexus between right-ear hearing loss and a disease or injury incurred in service, and denied reopening of the claim.
Applicable Law The Secretary must reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim when "new and material evidence" is presented or secured with respect to that claim.
First, it must determine whether the evidence presented or secured since the prior final disallowance of the claim is new and material "when viewed in the context of all the evidence, both new and old", Colvin v.
171, 174 (1991), and presuming "the credibility of the [new] evidence", Justus v.
If the evidence is new and material, the Board must 5 then review it on the merits "in the context of the other evidence of record" to determine whether the prior disposition of the claim should be altered.
must be of sufficient weight or significance (assuming its credibility) that there is a reasonable possibility that the new evidence, when viewed in the context of all the evidence, both new and old, would change the outcome.
A Board determination as to whether evidence is "new and material" is a question of law subject to de novo review by this Court under 38 U.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|Not New Material
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 →