CAVC Case 96-1373: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · November 17, 1999 · FARLEY
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
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
BackHipTDIUEyeArthritis
Why It Was Decided This Way
6 In June 1996, the Board found that the appellant had failed to submit a well-grounded claim.
The Board found that the record did not contain competent medical evidence that the appellant had suffered an in-service back or forehead injury, and that there was no competent medical evidence of a nexus between the appellant's current disabilities and service.
In essence, these alleged errors can be boiled down to a failure on the part of VA to advise him that he must provide the required medical evidence in order to well- ground his claim, that is, to connect his present disability with the putative incident aboard the U.
ulations issued or adopted by the Secretary, the Board of Veterans' Appeals, or the Chairman of the Board found to be-- (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or in violation of a statutory right; or (D) without observance of procedure required by law; and (4) in the case of a finding of material fact made in reaching a decision in a case before the Department with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary, hold unlawful and set aside such finding if the finding is clearly erroneous.
225, 229 (1993) (holding that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons and bases for its decision by not discussing the applicability of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability); Karnas v.
We disagree; this argument completely ignores the non-adversarial nature of the proceedings below and the concomital duty to assist that statute and regulations impose upon the Secretary.
Moreover, as noted above, the Secretary has an additional statutory duty to assist claimants "in developing the facts pertinent to the claim.
Therefore, under the case law established by this Court, the Board erred if it failed to enforce any law regarding a claim for benefits, whether or not the appellant raised arguments or challenges to that law to the Board, i.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
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 →