CAVC Case 94-557: Back

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · November 14, 1997 · KRAMER

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
Reversed / Denied / Remanded / Vacated / Affirmed
Decision Date
November 14, 1997
Judge
KRAMER
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackCervicalShoulderHeadacheSkinHeartTDIUEyeArthritisRadiculopathy

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

BackCervicalShoulderHeadacheSkinHeartTDIUEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

A June 1979 RO decision granted a 30% rating for service-connected congestive heart failure, effective on July 15, 1978, and concluded that CDD and related muscle atrophy were not service connected.

The Board noted that the BVA's 1981 decision had been a final disallowance of 7 the claim.

Additionally, as to a claim first raised in the appellant's brief -- that the BVA decision failed to address a reasonably raised claim for total disability on the basis of individual unemployability (TDIU) -- the Secretary has proposed that the TDIU claim be remanded (see Secretary's Brief (Br.

Thus, this appeal presents two major issues: (1) Whether the Board erred in the effective date it assigned for the veteran's increased rating for CDD; and (2) whether the Board erred in 8 determining that his claim for an increased rating for congestive heart failure was not properly before the Board.

at 2-12) and prior to the March 1990 BVA decision demonstrated an earlier effective date and that this is evidence that the RO and the Board failed to consider in the proceedings leading to the BVA decision on appeal.

196, 200 (1992) (although increased rating was based upon evidence submitted subsequent to application for increased rating, Board erred in not considering evidence about status of condition during one-year period prior to application); 38 U.

prior to filing of claim, Board's setting of November, rather than October, 1984 effective date was clearly erroneous); cf.

273, 283 (1996) (in claim to reopen on the basis of new and material evidence, if evidence is "new" and "probative", then VA must determine "in light of all the evidence of record, [whether] there [is] a reasonable possibility that the outcome of the claim on the merits would be changed" (emphasis added)).

Authorities Cited

Abernathy v. PrincipiBarrera v. GoberBrown v. GardnerBucklinger v. BrownCaffrey v. BrownDuran v. BrownEdenfield v. BrownEvans v. BrownFugo v. BrownGabrielson v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiHamilton v. BrownIn Russell v. PrincipiIn Wood v. DerwinskiIsenbart v. BrownJohnston v. BrownLewis v. BrownMasors v. DerwinskiMigra v. Warren City SchQuarles v. DerwinskiRussell v. PrincipiSee Allday v. BrownSee Allen v. BrownSee Caluza v. BrownSee Chisem v. BrownSee Degmetich v. BrownSee Dinsay v. BrownSee Grantham v. BrownSee Soyini v. DerwinskiServello v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 20.1000 (1996)38 CFR 3.155(a)38 CFR 3.400(o) (1996)38 CFR 3.400(o)(2)38 CFR 4.10438 USC 3.105(a) (1996)38 USC 510138 USC 5110(a)38 USC 5110(b)(1)38 USC 5110(b)(2)38 USC 7103(a)38 USC 7103(c)38 USC 7104(a)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 725138 USC 7261(a)(1)38 USC 7261(b)38 USC 7263(c)

Denial Type

Credibility|Not Service Connected|Not New Material|Duty To Assist|Cue

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.