CAVC Case 95-904: Anxiety

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · October 15, 1999 · 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

Affirmed

Decision Date

October 15, 1999

Judge

HOLDAWAY

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

Anxiety Cervical Hip Ankle Headache Skin Eye

Issues on Appeal

AnxietyCervicalHipAnkleHeadacheSkinEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

The Board determined that his claims for service connection for a seizure disorder and a neck disorder were not well grounded.

After reviewing the evidence, the Board found that the appellant had not presented a well- grounded claim for his seizure and neck disorders.

The Board found that the appellant failed to present evidence of an in-service injury or a medical nexus between any in-service injury and his present conditions.

Furthermore, the Board found that the cyst did not interfere with his employment.

For a claim to be well grounded, there must be: (1) a medical diagnosis of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the in-service injury or disease and the current disability.

For the purpose of determining whether a claim is well grounded, the credibility of the evidence in support of the claim is presumed.

In this case, the appellant has failed to submit medical evidence providing a nexus between his in-service injury and his current disability.

303 does not relieve the appellant of his burden of providing a medical nexus.

Authorities Cited

Anderson v. BrownArdison v. BrownBrewer v. WestCaluza v. BrownEdenfield v. BrownEpps v. BrownEpps v. GoberEpps v. WestHeuer v. BrownMoray v. BrownRobinette v. BrownSavage v. GoberSee Baker v. WestSee Bernard v. BrownSee Espiritu v. DerwinskiSee Gilbert v. DerwinskiSee Grottveit v. BrownSee King v. BrownSee Murincsak v. DerwinskiSee Tirpak v. DerwinskiWilliams v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 3.30338 CFR 3.303(b)38 CFR 4.138 CFR 4.1038 CFR 4.11438 CFR 4.11838 CFR 4.238 CFR 4.2038 USC 5103(a)38 USC 5107(a)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7252(a)38 USC 7252(b)38 USC 7261(b)

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|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 →