CAVC Case 94-1031: Anxiety
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · September 4, 1996 · 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
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
Anxiety
Why It Was Decided This Way
Our records show that we notified you on March 9, 1978 that your claim for varicose veins, left testicle was disallowed and that you were permitted to appeal this decision within one year from that time, otherwise that decision would become final unless you could submit new and material evidence.
Since you have not presented any new and material evidence, no change in our previous decision is warranted and no action on your duplicate claim will be taken.
The RO again decided that the appellant had not submitted any new and material evidence.
The RO determined that no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen his claim for service connection.
The RO again found that the appellant had not submitted any new and material evidence to warrant reopening his claim.
The hearing officer found that no new and material evidence had been submitted.
Finally, the appellant argues that the BVA failed to fulfill its duty to assist the appellant by not reopening his claim and informing the appellant that he had 60 days in which to furnish information regarding possible alternate sources of evidence as required by the VA ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL, (M21-1).
1 (1995), concluding that the Board must preliminarily decide that new and material evidence has been presented in a case it has previously adjudicated, before addressing the merits of the claim.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
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 →