CAVC Case 94-328: Psychiatric

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · April 23, 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
Vacated / Remanded / Denied
Decision Date
April 23, 1996
Judge
NEBEKER, Chief Judge
Service Era
November 1943 to December 1945

Conditions Claimed

PsychiatricBackCervicalShoulderHipTBIDiabetesEyeRadiculopathy

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

PsychiatricBackCervicalShoulderHipTBIDiabetesEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

ision denying service connection for DM and remand the matter for further consideration because the Board failed to consider whether his DM might be secondary to asserted malnutrition suffered as a POW.

384 (1995) (en banc), because that claim is not well grounded; (2) the Board's decision regarding polyneuropathy should be vacated and the issue remanded because the BVA failed to address it as a separate claim from the appellant's claim for service connection for DM, the post-remand examination did not fully comply with the remand instructions, and the Board should consider the application of the benefit-of-the- doubt argument; and (3) the BVA's decision regarding the appellant's claim for service connection for DM should be affirmed since it is not clearly erroneous.

The preponderance of the evidence shows diabetic neuropathy and we conclude that the veteran's peripheral neuropathy is due to intercurrent diabetes and not to frostbite or any other [POW] experience.

The Board's reasons here are inadequate for its conclusion that the appellant is not service connected for residuals of frostbite; in fact, it is not even clear to this Court whether the Board is denying service connection for residuals of frostbite or for polyneuropathy in this section of the Board's decision.

Claim for service connection for polyneuropathy The Secretary argues in his brief that remand is appropriate with regard to the appellant's claim for service connection for polyneuropathy (both upper and lower extremities) because the BVA had failed to address it as a claim separate from his claim for service connection for DM, because the post-remand examination did not fully comply with the remand instructions, and because the Board should consider the application of the benefit-of-the-doubt argument.

Where the Board makes a decision based on an examination report which does not contain sufficient detail, remand is required "for compliance with the duty to assist by conducting a `thorough and contemporaneous medical examination.

Such an equivocal statement does not support the BVA's finding that the appellant's polyneuropathy was not service connected, and remand is required.

Moreover, there has been no examination regarding the etiology of the polyneuropathy in the upper extremities, and remand is required for this reason as well.

Authorities Cited

Ardison v. BrownBurger v. BrownButts v. BrownDouglas v. DerwinskiEdenfield v. BrownEspiritu v. DerwinskiGreen v. DerwinskiGrottveit v. BrownHatlestad v. DerwinskiJenkins v. United StatesMagana v. BrownMartin v. DerwinskiMurphy v. DerwinskiProscelle v. DerwinskiSee Bucklinger v. BrownSee Caluza v. BrownSee Dixon v. DerwinskiSee Fletcher v. DerwinskiSee Ohland v. DerwinskiSmith v. BrownStanton v. BrownTirpak v. DerwinskiWaddell v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.9 (1995)38 CFR 20.901(a)38 CFR 3.103(a) (1995)38 CFR 3.103(c)(2) (1995)38 CFR 3.304(d) (1995)38 CFR 3.307(d) (1995)38 CFR 3.309(c) (1995)38 CFR 4.2 (1995)38 USC 1112(b)38 USC 1112(b)(13)38 USC 1113(a)38 USC 5107(a)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7109

Denial Type

No Nexus|Not Service Connected|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam

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.