CAVC Case 94-1194: Psychiatric
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 12, 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
PsychiatricHeart
Why It Was Decided This Way
NEBEKER, Chief Judge: The appellant, Virgil Butler, appeals an August 8, 1994, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board or BVA) decision finding that he had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen claims for service connection for a throat disability and a cardiovascular disability, and finding that those claims, filed in 1976 and 1977 respectively, were not then or thereafter well grounded.
In September 1989, the RO wrote to the appellant explaining that the September 1977 decision regarding his heart condition was final, and he needed to submit new and material evidence to reopen.
The RO explained, "Medical evidence that describes your disability as it is now is not considered to be new and material.
The appellant submitted another Statement in Support of Claim, and the RO again denied his claims for service connection for a throat condition and a heart condition because the appellant had not submitted any new and material evidence.
The Board found that not only had the appellant failed to submit new and material evidence, but that the appellant's original claims 4 were not well grounded.
ANALYSIS After ruling out new and material evidence, the BVA addressed the question of whether the appellant's claims were well grounded and concluded that they were not.
As the issue presented to the Board was whether the appellant had submitted new and material evidence, this case, therefore, presents us with the question whether the Board erred in finding that the appellant had never submitted well-grounded claims where his claims had previously been denied.
This Court reviews de novo the question of whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|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 →