CAVC Case 95-1082: Psychiatric

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 23, 1999 · 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

Rating Married Children

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)

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

See your full claim picture — free

Outcome

Remanded / Reversed / Vacated

Decision Date

June 23, 1999

Judge

NEBEKER, Chief Judge

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

Psychiatric Back Cervical TBI Skin TDIU Eye Radiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

PsychiatricBackCervicalTBISkinTDIUEyeRadiculopathy

Why It Was Decided This Way

te for the assignment of a 50% schedular rating for service-connected PCS (claim 2), and found that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim for service connection for residuals of a neck and back injury (claim 3).

In December 1984, the Board found as follows: "Resolving reasonable doubt in the veteran's favor, the Board concludes that he suffered a head injury in service resulting in [PCS].

5 In December 1985, the Board denied a rating in excess of 10% for PCS.

105(a)" in the May 1985 RO decision and in the December 1985 BVA decision; the veteran asserted that VA had failed to consider evidence of "complete social and industrial inadaptability" that warranted a 100% rating.

In January 1990, the hearing officer issued a decision denying a rating in excess of 50%, but did not address in his decision the matter of a rating for a total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU).

In the March 15, 1995, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board determined that -- due to the fact that its December 1985 decision had become final -- the veteran's entitlement to an earlier effective date for a 100% rating "must relate to his .

The Court reviews questions of fact using the "clearly erroneous" standard of review in 38 U.

In determining whether a finding is clearly erroneous, "this Court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the BVA on issues of material fact; if there is a 'plausible basis' in the record for the factual determinations of the BVA .

Authorities Cited

Bernard v. BrownBeyrle v. BrownBrewer v. WestButts v. BrownCrippen v. BrownDegmetich v. BrownDonovan v. WestDuran v. BrownFenderson v. WestFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiHamilton v. BrownHazan v. GoberHolland v. GoberIn Russell v. PrincipiIsenbart v. BrownLane v. WestLink v. WestPrenzler v. DerwinskiQuarles v. DerwinskiScott v. BrownSee Christianson v. Colt IndusSee Ford v. GoberSee Hanson v. BrownSee Marsh v. WestSee Stegall v. WestSkinner v. DerwinskiSlater v. BrownSwanson v. PrincipiVettese v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.12(a) (1998)38 CFR 19.5 (1998) (same)38 CFR 20.201 (1998)38 CFR 3.105(a)38 CFR 3.105(a) (1998)38 CFR 3.400(o)38 CFR 3.400(o)(1)38 CFR 4.13038 CFR 4.13238 CFR 4.16(b) (1998)38 USC 113138 USC 510138 USC 510838 USC 5110(a)38 USC 5110(b)(2)38 USC 5110(i)38 USC 7104(c)38 USC 7105(b)(1)38 USC 711138 USC 7251

Denial Type

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 →