CAVC Case 94-0206: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · October 10, 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.

Rating Married Children

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)

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

See your full claim picture — free

Outcome

Reversed / Dismissed / Vacated / Remanded

Decision Date

October 10, 1995

Judge

NEBEKER, Chief Judge

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSD Back Hearing Loss Tinnitus Hip Eye

Issues on Appeal

PTSDBackHearing LossTinnitusHipEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

A November 1992 BVA decision determined that new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the hearing-loss claim, citing the new medical evidence and a change in 38 C.

In the December 23, 1993, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for his increased right-eye rating.

The Board denied service connection for hearing loss, reasoning that although the opinions of Drs.

The Secretary must reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim when "new and material evidence" is presented or secured with respect to the basis for the denial of 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 when "the credibility of the [new] evidence" 9 is presumed, Justus v.

If the evidence is new and material, the second step is that the Board must 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.

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

Abernathy v. PrincipiAllday v. BrownBlackburn v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiDamrel v. BrownDarrow v. DerwinskiDuran v. BrownFletcher v. DerwinskiGabrielson v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiHatlestad v. DerwinskiIn Russell v. PrincipiIn Talbert v. BrownJustus v. PrincipiLittke v. DerwinskiLizaso v. BrownManio v. DerwinskiOlson v. BrownQuarles v. DerwinskiSchmidt v. BrownSee Caluza v. BrownSee Chavarria v. BrownSee Masors v. DerwinskiSee Suttmann v. BrownSee Thurber v. BrownSimon v. DerwinskiSpencer v. BrownTighe v. BrownWillis v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 2.7 (1994)38 CFR 3.105(a)38 CFR 3.105(a) (1994)38 CFR 3.159 (1994)38 CFR 3.385 (1990)38 CFR 3.400 (1994)38 USC 111038 USC 50338 USC 5107(a)38 USC 510838 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7261(a)(1)38 USC 7261(a)(3)38 USC 7261(a)(4)

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Duty To Assist|Cue

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 →