CAVC Case 94-1080: Anxiety

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · November 26, 1996 · KRAMER

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

Affirmed / Granted / Vacated

Decision Date

November 26, 1996

Judge

KRAMER

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

Anxiety Psychiatric Back Cervical Knee Shoulder Hip Ankle Headache Skin

Issues on Appeal

AnxietyPsychiatricBackCervicalKneeShoulderHipAnkle

Why It Was Decided This Way

Subsequently, the RO and then the Board denied service connection for residuals of a head injury.

In an August 1992 BVA decision, the Board found that no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen claims for service connection for either rheumatic heart disease or rheumatoid arthritis.

The Board noted specifically that there was no evidence to support a conclusion that the veteran had developed 8 rheumatic fever after an inoculation during service.

[The veteran] told me his disability [compensation] had been stopped because it had been determined that his [r]heumatic [h]eart disease was not service connected.

In the September 1994 BVA decision here on appeal, an expanded panel of the Board 12 reconsidered the veteran's claims and found that new and material evidence had been submitted and denied both claims on the merits.

The Board found that the March 1994 IMO "provides the best analysis of the actual facts in relation to the pertinent medical principles" and that the analysis "points to the conclusion that the veteran did not have a chronic rheumatic disease during his brief active military service".

The Board concluded that "the actual medical records and the preponderance of credible medical opinion form a preponderance of evidence against the veteran's claim".

Analysis The appellant, through counsel, maintains that the Board's decision denying the claims should be reversed because the Board failed to consider the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, made improper findings in discrediting the medical opinions of Dr.

Authorities Cited

Accardi v. ShaughnessyAustin v. BrownBooton v. BrownCaluza v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiCox v. BrownCurry v. BrownDaniels v. BrownEdenfield v. BrownEvans v. BrownFletcher v. DerwinskiFugere v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGlynn v. BrownIn Bernard v. BrownIn Thurber v. BrownLittke v. DerwinskiManio v. DerwinskiMoray v. BrownMorton v. RuizQuarles v. DerwinskiRobinette v. BrownSee Allday v. BrownSee Bielby v. BrownSee Blackburn v. BrownSee Graves v. BrownSee Masors v. DerwinskiService v. DullesStruck v. BrownThurber v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.3138 CFR 19.31 (1995)38 CFR 19.5 (1995)38 CFR 20.1001(c)(2) (1992)38 CFR 20.130438 CFR 20.1304(a)38 CFR 20.1304(b)38 CFR 20.1304(c)38 CFR 20.238 CFR 20.2 (1995)38 CFR 20.903 (1993)38 CFR 3.103(a)38 USC 510138 USC 5103(a)38 USC 510438 USC 5107(a)38 USC 5107(b)38 USC 510838 USC 7104(c)38 USC 7104(d)(1)

Denial Type

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 →