CAVC Case 94-764: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · April 29, 1997 · HOLDAWAY

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 / Affirmed / Vacated
Decision Date
April 29, 1997
Judge
HOLDAWAY
Service Era
July 1944 to May 1946

Conditions Claimed

PTSDDepressionBackHipAnkleHeartRespiratoryTDIURadiculopathyHypertension

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

PTSDDepressionBackHipAnkleHeartRespiratoryTDIU

Why It Was Decided This Way

In a December 1987 decision, the Board denied the § 351 DIC claim, finding that the "veteran's death was irrespective of the treatment provided and any factor arising from the treatment 6 was a foreseeable result of approved treatment" and (citing, inter alia, 38 C.

In a separate December 1987 decision, the Board denied the appellant's claim for accrued benefits based on TDIU due to service-connected disabilities.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected disabilities were: Residuals of a partial small bowel resection; residuals of an abdomen shell-fragment wound (SFW), involving Muscle Group XIX; residuals of a right testicle removal; a bladder laceration; laceration of the urethra; left nephrolithiasis; and residuals of large bowel surgery.

In March 1989, the RO denied those claims, finding no new and material evidence warranting a reopening.

A June 1991 Board decision found that the evidence newly presented since the Board's December 1987 decision was new and material and thus warranted reopening as to the appellant's § 351 DIC claim; the Board decision awarded DIC.

In the July 1, 1994, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board denied: (1) Reopening as to the accrued-benefits TDIU claim; (2) § 1310 DIC after having reopened as to that claim; (3) entitlement to burial benefits; and (4) entitlement to an effective date earlier than May 1, 1988, for the award of § 1151 DIC.

The Board proceeded to find that new and material evidence had not been submitted since the time of the Board's December 1987 decision disallowing the claim for accrued benefits based on TDIU, and denied reopening.

The Board noted the veteran's service-connected disabilities but did not mention his kidney condition as one of them for purposes of the TDIU claim.

Authorities Cited

Ashley v. DerwinskiAustin v. BrownBegin v. DerwinskiBell v. DerwinskiBrown v. GardnerChisem v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiCox v. BrownDarrow v. DerwinskiDavis v. BrownDean v. BrownFletcher v. DerwinskiGardner v. DerwinskiIn Chute v. DerwinskiIn Evans v. BrownJustus v. PrincipiKarnas v. DerwinskiManio v. DerwinskiMason v. BrownMorris v. SullivanQuarles v. DerwinskiRussell v. PrincipiSee Allday v. BrownSee Babchak v. PrincipiSee Bielby v. BrownSee Blackburn v. BrownSee Edenfield v. BrownSee Harvey v. BrownSee Masors v. DerwinskiStruck v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.938 CFR 20.1104 (1995)38 CFR 3.103(c)(2)38 CFR 3.103(c)(2) (1996)38 CFR 3.105(a) (1996)38 CFR 3.1601(a) (1996)38 CFR 3.1601(b)38 CFR 3.1601(b) (1996)38 CFR 3.1601(b)(1)38 CFR 3.358(c)(3)38 CFR 3.400 (1995)38 CFR 4.16(a) (1996)38 USC 115138 USC 131038 USC 230238 USC 2303(a)38 USC 230438 USC 230738 USC 35138 USC 503 (a)

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|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.