CAVC Case 95-310: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · November 10, 1998 · 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.

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 / Denied / Vacated

Decision Date

November 10, 1998

Judge

HOLDAWAY

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSD Anxiety Psychiatric Back Knee Hearing Loss Shoulder Headache Heart Respiratory

Issues on Appeal

PTSDAnxietyPsychiatricBackKneeHearing LossShoulderHeadache

Why It Was Decided This Way

sychiatric disorder, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); the Board also concluded that new and material evidence had not been presented or secured to reopen his previously disallowed claims for service connection for a right-foot disorder, for a knee disorder, and for a right-hand disorder; and the Board found that his claim for service connection for a right-shoulder disorder was not well grounded.

at 493), but the RO informed him that because he had not filed an NOD within one year after the 1958 decision denying those claims it could take no action absent new and material evidence (R.

However, the RO apparently later accepted the May 1991"NOD" as putting into appellate status the questions whether the veteran 3 had submitted new and material evidence on the foot, hand, and knee conditions.

In the September 22, 1994, BVA decision on appeal, the Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for respiratory disorders, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder and asthma, for a cardiovascular disorder, including hypertension, and for a psychiatric disorder, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); the Board concluded that new and material evidence had not been presented or secured to reopen his claims for service connection for a right-foot disorder, for a knee disorder, and for a right-hand disorder; and the Board found that his claim for service connection for a right-shoulder disorder was not well grounded.

Merits Issues The Board decision on appeal denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a respiratory disorder, for a cardiovascular disorder, and for a psychiatric disorder; the Board concluded that new and material evidence had not been presented or secured to reopen his claims for service connection for a right-foot disorder, for a knee disorder, and for a right-hand disorder; and the Board found that his claim for service connection for a right-shoulder disorder was not well grounded.

The Court therefore concludes that the following five matters are properly before it: Service connection for a psychiatric condition and for a cardiovascular disorder; whether new and material evidence has been presented or secured to reopen the previously disallowed claims for service connection for a knee and a right-hand disorder; and CUE claims in connection with disallowed claims for service connection for hepatitis.

Psychiatric condition: The Secretary concedes that the Court should remand the appellant's claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, because the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for rejecting the results of a November 1992 "assessment stemming from incidents he was involved in during WW II" that diagnosed PTSD.

Here, the veteran's PTSD claim is well grounded because there is a diagnosis of current PTSD, the assertion of an in-service stressor, and medical evidence of a nexus between the veteran's PTSD symptomatology and his service.

Authorities Cited

Abernathy v. PrincipiAdepegba v. HammonsAronson v. BrownBagwell v. BrownBuckley v. ValeoBucklinger v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiColyer v. HarrisFleming v. Mohawk WreckingFletcher v. DerwinskiGabrielson v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiHamilton v. BrownHeath v. WestHenderson v. BrownHenderson v. WestHodge v. WestHoyer v. DerwinskiIn Harris v. DerwinskiKarnas v. DerwinskiLindh v. MurphyLinville v. WestMarsh v. WestMasors v. DerwinskiMayer v. BrownNacoste v. BrownObert v. BrownQuarles v. DerwinskiRosler v. DerwinskiSee Allday v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.9 (1997)38 CFR 20.1001(c) (1994)38 CFR 20.102 (1993)38 CFR 20.102(b)38 CFR 3.156(a)38 CFR 3.156(a) (1997)38 CFR 3.6(b)(6)38 CFR 4.2 (1997)38 USC 101(21)38 USC 115138 USC 1151 (1994)38 USC 501(a)38 USC 50338 USC 510138 USC 5107(a)38 USC 510838 USC 512(a)38 USC 7101(b)(4)38 USC 7102(a)38 USC 7103

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|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 →