CAVC Case 95-005: Anxiety
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · January 16, 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.
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
AnxietyPsychiatricBackSkinTDIUArthritis
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
AnxietyPsychiatricBackSkinTDIUArthritis
Why It Was Decided This Way
This case previously came before the Court on appeal from a June 13, 1990, BVA decision in which the Board denied DIC because the appellant had not met the criteria for DIC eligibility under the existing statutes.
The Court, however, vacated the Board's decision and remanded the matter because the BVA had failed to provide adequate reasons and bases for rejecting the appellant's new and material evidence.
On appeal, the Court affirmed the BVA's finding but vacated the decision and remanded the matter because the Board had failed to provide an appropriate discussion of its reasons and bases for rejecting new and material evidence submitted by the appellant -- namely, statements made by former POWs who had served with the veteran, and a medical opinion given by the veteran's physician, Dr.
After reevaluating all of the evidence on remand, the Board found the evidence to be "new and material" and sufficient to reopen the appellant's claim for DIC.
The Board noted, however, that this determination was "no more than a Pyrrhic victory" because the evidence did not change the effective date for total unemployability.
In its final decision, the BVA stated: What is really the central issue in this case is not whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the appellant's claim, but whether there was clear and unmistakable error in a final rating decision made prior to the veteran's death, an error which if rectified, would result in the veteran having been evaluated as totally disabled at least 10 years prior to death.
The Board noted in its decision, that the April 1972 rating decision was issued after the RO had received a VA hospital summary that pertained to the veteran's hospitalization in February and March 1972.
MacAllister, though new and material, does not show that there was CUE in the May 1971 or April 1972 rating decision thereby necessitating further reconsideration of the appellant's claim.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not Service Connected|Not New Material|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 →