CAVC Case 94-476: Hip

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · October 10, 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 / Vacated
Decision Date
October 10, 1996
Judge
NEBEKER, Chief Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

HipProstateHypertension

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

HipProstateHypertension

Why It Was Decided This Way

In order for the appellant's claim for service connection to be well grounded, he must have presented competent evidence of the following: a current disability, a disease or injury incurred in service, and a nexus between the disease or injury and the current disability.

With regard to the nexus issue, he contends that his glomerulonephritis 4 is linked to the hematuria he experienced in service.

Thus, he must have presented competent medical nexus evidence to the effect that this claim is "plausible" or "possible.

As the Board noted in its decision, the medical statements on this issue are couched in cautious terms: Dr.

Nevertheless, each physician provided competent evidence supporting the medical nexus theory advanced by the appellant.

Nothing more is required to meet the medical nexus component of the appellant's initial burden under 38 U.

5 The Court holds that the Board erred in its conclusion that a medical opinion regarding the etiology of the appellant's kidney disorder was not required to support the decision denying service connection.

As the Board noted, the record contains opinions from two of the appellant's treating physicians on the causation issue; however, these opinions, though cautiously worded, are favorable to the appellant's claim.

Authorities Cited

Murphy v. DerwinskiSee Bucklinger v. BrownSee Caluza v. BrownSee Colvin v. DerwinskiSee Grottveit v. BrownSee Lathan v. BrownSee Quarles v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 USC 5107(a)

Denial Type

No Nexus|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.