CAVC Case 94-687: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 13, 1997 · 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.
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
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
BackSkinEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
Pellerin, the veteran, determined that no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine and right leg disorders.
As to the first issue, the precise position that the BVA took was that the appellant had failed to produce new and material evidence.
, that new and material evidence was not presented, was decisively or even primarily affected by its rejection of the appellant's "expert" testimony.
When read in its entirety, the decision, which was exceedingly detailed and thorough and which looks very much like a de facto reopening, appears to be an alternative or "make weight" justification rather than the raison d'etre for finding a lack of new and material evidence.
In sum, it does not appear that the issue of the appellant's expertise was in any way decisive in the BVA's ultimate position that new and material evidence had not been presented.
These two cases are illustrative of instances where this Court accepted pre- opening credibility determinations.
In Reonal, the presumption of credibility did not arise because the physician "relied upon appellant's account of his medical history and service background, recitations which had already been rejected" by the regional office.
Accordingly, and despite the Secretary's concession in his December 1994 motion to remand that these exceptions were not applicable, the Court finds that the presumption of credibility should not have arisen, and Dr.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material
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 →