CAVC Case 94-342: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · August 30, 1995 · FARLEY

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

Vacated

Decision Date

August 30, 1995

Judge

FARLEY

Service Era

November 1968 to August 1971

Conditions Claimed

PTSD Anxiety Psychiatric Back Hip TDIU Eye

Issues on Appeal

PTSDAnxietyPsychiatricBackHipTDIUEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

In the January 1994 BVA decision, the Board decided that "the preponderance of the evidence [was] against [the appellant's] appeal for an increased rating for [PTSD].

The appellant filed a timely appeal to this Court, arguing that VA violated its duty to assist him by not providing a psychiatric examination as instructed by the Board upon remand to the RO.

The appellant asserts that the Board erred when it failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for finding more persuasive the 1990 medical diagnosis which failed to diagnose PTSD than the two other examination reports of record which diagnosed PTSD.

Finally, the appellant argued that the BVA erred when it failed to consider all the evidence, to include his testimony that he could not work with others and the "Health-Related Work Classification Summary" documents he submitted to show the limitations placed upon his job assignments due to his medical condition.

Although the Board found, without analysis, the appellant's claim to be well grounded, the determination of whether a claim is well grounded is a matter of law which this Court reviews de novo.

359, 365 (1995) ("The threshold of plausibility to make a claim well grounded is considerably lower than the threshold for new and material evidence to justify reopening a claim").

Here, the Board concluded that the appellant's claim for an increased rating should be denied, but the Board's decision failed to "account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive," for the record contained evidence supporting the appellant's claim which the BVA did not address in its decision.

at 57, or "analyze the credibility and probative value of all material evidence submitted by and on behalf of a claimant, and provide the reason for its rejection of any such evidence.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownCaluza v. BrownCowart v. Nicklos Drilling CoCrowe v. BrownFarrar v. HobbyGabrielson v. BrownGrottveit v. BrownIn Gilbert v. DerwinskiIn Wood v. DerwinskiKing v. BrownLathan v. BrownMurphy v. DerwinskiOlson v. PrincipiPersonnel Management v. RichmondSee Mokal v. DerwinskiSee Proscelle v. DerwinskiSee Wood v. DerwinskiSee Yabut v. BrownStanton v. BrownSuttmann v. BrownTirpak v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.938 CFR 20.711 (1994)38 CFR 3.159 (1994)38 CFR 3.327 (1992)38 CFR 3.665 (1994)38 CFR 3.665(d)(1)38 CFR 4.138 CFR 4.238 USC 1114(a)38 USC 115538 USC 510138 USC 5107(a)38 USC 5107(b)38 USC 531338 USC 5313(a)(1)38 USC 571138 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7252(a)38 USC 7261(a)(1)

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 →