CAVC Case 94-149: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · April 16, 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
BackShoulderHeartEyeArthritisRadiculopathyHypertension
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
BackShoulderHeartEyeArthritisRadiculopathyHypertension
Why It Was Decided This Way
In April 1971, the RO, finding the evidence submitted "not new and material to warrant a favorable reconsideration", refused to reopen the claim.
The Board concluded that "[i]rrespective of the reasons for not filing a timely appeal from the rating determination in May 1949, the fact remains that the determination was not timely appealed".
In an October 1978 decision, the Board denied the veteran entitlement to disability compensation prior to the effective date of December 21, 1970.
The Board determined his disability to be "static", and noted that the current rating was "the maximum rating provided for multiple muscle injuries involving the shoulder girdle and arm, less the [10%] level of disability existing prior to entry into service, absent evidence of repeated episodes of osteomyelitis or a showing of such active infection for many years.
As to the claim for an increased disability rating, the Board found that "[t]he evidence recently presented fails to disclose impairment which warrants a rating greater than the schedular evaluation assignable for ankylosis of the right upper extremity.
In the September 2, 1993, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board determined that "the preponderance of the evidence [was] against the claim of an increased rating", and also found that "[n]o objective medical evidence ha[d] been submitted showing that the veteran's service-connected 9 disability of the right shoulder and arm had any effect whatsoever on his cardiovascular system.
The Court reviews BVA factfinding under a "clearly erroneous" standard; "if there is a `plausible' basis in the record for the factual determinations of the BVA, .
Thus, the Court cannot find that the Board was clearly erroneous in its denial of an increased rating for the right shoulder and arm.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|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 →