CAVC Case 96-1214: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · February 11, 1999 · 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.

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)
RatingMonthly (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
Denied / Affirmed / Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
February 11, 1999
Judge
KRAMER
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSDAnxietyBackHearing LossTinnitusShoulderHipAnkleTBISkin

Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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

PTSDAnxietyBackHearing LossTinnitusShoulderHipAnkle

Why It Was Decided This Way

In the May 28, 1996, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board denied service connection for wounds of the lower extremities, frostbite of the feet, a skin disorder of the feet, hearing loss in the left ear, a low back disorder, and a bilateral eye disorder and denied a compensable rating for a fracture of the right third toe and for degenerative changes and narrowing of the right-shoulder joint space.

Well Groundedness of Service-Connection Claims The Board found, without analysis, "that the [appellant's] claims are 'well grounded'".

§ 1110 generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the asserted in-service injury or disease and the current disability.

303(b) (1998) by (a) evidence that a condition was "noted" during service or during an applicable presumption period; (b) evidence showing postservice continuity of symptomatology; and (c) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the postservice symptomatology.

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

, current disability and medical nexus); rather, the first sentence of section 1154(b) relates only to incurrence -- that is, "what happened [in service]" (Caluza, 7 Vet.

302, 305 (1998) ("we hold again today, that a combat veteran who has successfully established the in-service occurrence or aggravation of an injury pursuant to [section] 1154(b) and Collette, must still submit sufficient evidence of a causal nexus between that in-service event and his or her current disability[,] as required by Caluza"); Velez, 11 Vet.

§ 1154(b) relate[s] only to the question of service incurrence, 'that is, what happened then--not the questions of either current disability or nexus to service, as to both of which competent medical evidence is generally required'") (quoting Caluza, supra)); Cohen (Douglas) v.

Authorities Cited

Brock v. BrownCaluza v. BrownChipego v. BrownCollaro v. WestCollette v. BrownDegmetich v. BrownEdenfield v. BrownEpps v. GoberEpps v. WestEspiritu v. DerwinskiFalzone v. BrownFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGrivois v. BrownGrottveit v. BrownHamilton v. BrownHarvey v. BrownHazan v. GoberHenderson v. WestHeuer v. BrownHodge v. WestIsenbart v. BrownJensen v. BrownLibertine v. BrownLittke v. DerwinskiLovelace v. DerwinskiLuca v. BrownMeyer v. BrownMurphy v. DerwinskiQuarles v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.938 CFR 3.155 (1998)38 CFR 3.156(a) (1998)38 CFR 3.159 (1998)38 CFR 3.303(b)38 CFR 3.303(b) (1998)38 CFR 3.304(d)38 CFR 3.304(d) (1998)38 CFR 4.238 CFR 4.71(a) (1998)38 CFR 4.71a38 USC 111038 USC 1154(b)38 USC 3.159 (1998)38 USC 510138 USC 5101(a)38 USC 5107(a)38 USC 5107(b)38 USC 725138 USC 7252(a)

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|Preponderance Against|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 →
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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.