CAVC Case 94-54: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 8, 1996 · MANKIN
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
BackHipHeartEyeArthritisHypertension
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
BackHipHeartEyeArthritisHypertension
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant contends that the Board erred in failing to apply 38 U.
The veteran must then generally establish that his claim is well grounded by medical evidence tending to show a current disability and a nexus between that disability and those service events.
His lay testimony that he has had a heart condition ever since discharge is not sufficient evidence of nexus to service.
Because the heart disorder and the hypertension claims are not well grounded, no duty to assist arose with respect to those claims.
Although the Board erred in concluding that the appellant's claims for service connection for a heart disorder and hypertension were well grounded, such error did not result in prejudice to him.
As to the hemorrhoids claim, under section 1154(b), the appellant may use lay testimony to show that rectal bleeding happened in service, but not to show a current diagnosis or a nexus between a current condition and service.
In this case the Board failed to apply section 1154(b) to the appellant's hemorrhoids claim.
The credibility of this evidence must be presumed for purposes of determining whether the claim is well grounded.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|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 →