CAVC Case 95-984: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 14, 2001 · KRAMER, 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.
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
PTSDDepressionPsychiatricBackSkinTDIUArthritisRadiculopathy
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
PTSDDepressionPsychiatricBackSkinTDIUArthritisRadiculopathy
Why It Was Decided This Way
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) affirmed the Court's decision that the November 1972 VARO decision did not contain CUE, but remanded the matter to determine whether the VARO breached its "duty to assist" in 1972 by failing to obtain certain requested service medical records (SMRs) that had not been previously obtained.
The Federal Circuit held that if the VARO "breached the duty to assist in 1972, then the 1972 decision [wa]s not final for the purposes of direct appeal" and therefore, the appellant's claim would still be open and unadjudicated.
In sum, the Court asked the parties to address the following three questions: (1) Does this Court have jurisdiction over the issue remanded by the Federal Circuit?; (2) Was the Secretary required to provide assistance to the appellant in 1972?; and if so (3) Did the Secretary fulfill his duty to assist? In response, the parties agreed that the Court had jurisdiction over this matter, that the Secretary was required to provide assistance to the appellant in 1972, and that the Secretary had breached that duty to assist.
Thus, the parties, both quoting the Federal Circuit's opinion, asserted that the Court should "remand the case to permit the [Secretary] the opportunity to fulfill the duty to assist and to review the case to determine whether the additional evidence, together with the evidence that was previously of record, supports the allowance of benefits sought on appeal.
In March 1993, he filed with the RO a statement as follows: The rating decision of November 6, 1972, is clearly erroneous in its denial for service connection of a nervous condition claimed by the veteran.
The action taken by the original office of jurisdiction is clearly erroneous in that they failed to properly develop this man[']s claim, by not requesting necessary clinical records from the department of service or the facilities named.
The duty to assist in the development of the claim was clearly absent.
Your reasons for denying the earlier effective date based on a clearly erroneous decision dated 11/6/72 are not valid.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
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 →