CAVC Case 94-322: Anxiety

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · May 14, 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

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)
RatingMonthly (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
Remanded
Decision Date
May 14, 1996
Judge
NEBEKER, Chief Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

AnxietyPsychiatricBackKneeHipAnkleEye

Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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

AnxietyPsychiatricBackKneeHipAnkleEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

A July 1992 RO decision on remand from the Board concluded that the evidence of record 7 did not "establish that [the appellant] met the definition of insanity as provided in 38 C.

In the March 1994 BVA decision here on appeal, the Board concluded that, although new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the claim concerning the character of his discharge, the evidence of record established that that discharge was a bar to VA benefits other than health care and related benefits under chapter 17 of title 38, U.

New and Material Evidence Under the applicable law, the Secretary must reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim when "new and material evidence" is presented or secured with respect to the basis for the disallowance of that claim.

§§ 5108 ("[i]f new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim"), 7105(c) ("[i]f no [[NOD] is filed in accordance with this chapter within the prescribed period, the [RO] action or determination shall become final and the claim will not thereafter be reopened or allowed, except as may otherwise be provided by regulations not inconsistent with this title"); Suttmann v.

First, it must be determined whether the evidence presented or secured since the prior final disallowance of the claim is new and material "when viewed in the context of all the evidence, both new and old", Colvin v.

171, 174 (1991), and when "the credibility of the [new] evidence" is presumed, Justus v.

Second, if the evidence is new and material, then the claim must be reopened and all the evidence of record reviewed to determine the outcome of the claim on the merits.

A Board determination as to whether evidence is "new and material" is a question of law subject to de novo review by this Court under 38 U.

Authorities Cited

Aguilar v. DerwinskiBlackburn v. BrownColon v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiCropper v. BrownEspiritu v. DerwinskiFoster v. DerwinskiFrancisco v. BrownGabrielson v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiGobber v. DerwinskiGrottveit v. BrownHelige v. PrincipiIn Winter v. PrincipiJustus v. PrincipiLittke v. DerwinskiManio v. DerwinskiOhland v. DerwinskiSandoval v. BrownSee Bailey v. DerwinskiSee Biggins v. DerwinskiSee Caluza v. BrownSee Karnas v. DerwinskiSee Lizaso v. BrownSee Masors v. DerwinskiSee Moray v. BrownSee Owens v. BrownSimon v. DerwinskiStringham v. BrownSuttmann v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 3.1238 CFR 3.12(d)38 CFR 3.12(d)(4)38 CFR 3.35438 CFR 3.354(a)38 CFR 3.354(a) (1995)38 CFR 3.400(b)(2) (1995)38 USC 101(2)38 USC 111038 USC 312(a)(4)38 USC 33738 USC 5107(a)38 USC 510838 USC 5110(a)38 USC 512538 USC 530338 USC 5303(b)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7261(a)(1)38 USC 7261(a)(4)

Denial Type

Credibility|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 →
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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.