CAVC Case 94-0927: Knee
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · January 27, 1997 · 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
KneeHearing LossHipHeartEyeRadiculopathyProstate
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
KneeHearing LossHipHeartEyeRadiculopathyProstate
Why It Was Decided This Way
As was the case in Ramey, the BVA decision here was issued prior to the Combee opinion, and the BVA failed to address the question of direct service connection.
510 (1992), this Court held that in an attempt to reopen a previously disallowed claim, the credibility of evidence is to be presumed, and that further, [o]nce the evidence is found to be new and material and the case is reopened, the presumption that it is credible and entitled to full weight no longer applies.
In the adjudication that follows the reopening, the Board having accepted provisionally for reopening purposes the credibility of the new evidence, then must determine, as a question of fact, both the weight and credibility of the new evidence in the context of all the evidence, new and old.
19, 21 (1993), this presumption of credibility was expressly extended to evidence submitted to render claims well grounded.
In determining whether a claim is well grounded where the proposed medical theory has scientific underpinnings, we similarly hold that the Board must presume the credibility of the scientific theory unless it is "inherently incredible.
In the instant case, the BVA committed error in assessing the credibility and weight of the evidence before determining whether the claim was well grounded.
With regard to scientific evidence, the analysis set forth by the Supreme Court is useful in defining the "inherently incredible" exception to the presumption of credibility.
Such a preliminary assessment is not unlike the Board's threshold analysis of whether proffered evidence relating to a scientific theory is `inherently incredible,' and therefore not entitled to the presumption of credibility, or not useful in a determination of a claim's well-groundedness.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|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 →