CAVC Case 95-497: Back

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · February 26, 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.

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

Affirmed

Decision Date

February 26, 1997

Judge

KRAMER

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

Back Shoulder Headache Heart TDIU Eye

Issues on Appeal

BackShoulderHeadacheHeartTDIUEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

a November 1973 effective date for total disability, and that found the appellant had not presented new and material evidence to reopen a claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

at 1) and of its denial of DIC on the grounds that the cause of death was not service connected and that the veteran "[w]as not continuously rated totally disabled for a period of ten or more years immediately preceding death" (Suppl.

The SOC addressed only the RO denial of service connection for cause of death and did not address section 410(b) entitlement.

In a September 1992 NOD, the appellant contended that failure to award an earlier effective date for TDIU was CUE in the 1974 RO decision and that VA had breached its duty to assist the veteran in his earlier claim.

The representative also asked that VA fulfill its duty to assist by aiding the appellant in the production of records relating to the veteran's condition between May and November 1973.

In the February 6, 1995, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence was against the CUE claim asserting a failure to assign an effective date of May 1973 instead of November 1973.

The Board also concluded that new and material evidence was necessary to reopen the appellant's claim, because the appellant's DIC claim was, under Isenhart v.

at 15), and that the appellant had not presented new and material evidence (R.

Authorities Cited

Allen v. BrownCaluza v. BrownCay v. BrownCrippen v. BrownDamrel v. BrownDarrow v. DerwinskiEddy v. BrownEdenfield v. BrownGardner v. BrownGardner v. DerwinskiGold v. BrownGrottveit v. BrownIsenhart v. DerwinskiKing v. StQuarles v. DerwinskiRussell v. PrincipiSee Bell v. DerwinskiSee Dolan v. BrownSee Viglas v. BrownSpencer v. BrownTallman v. BrownZevalkink v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 20.110638 CFR 20.1106 (1996)38 CFR 3.105(a)38 CFR 3.114(a)38 CFR 3.114(a) (1995)38 CFR 3.2238 CFR 3.22 (1995)38 CFR 3.22(a)(2)38 CFR 3.22(a)(2) (1995)38 CFR 3.312 (1994)38 CFR 3.400(o)(2)38 CFR 3.5(a)38 CFR 3.5(a) (1995)38 USC 115138 USC 131038 USC 131838 USC 1318(b)38 USC 1318(b)(1)38 USC 1318(b)(2)38 USC 410(b)

Denial Type

Not Service Connected|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|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 →