CAVC Case 96-1517: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · July 14, 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
PTSDBackHearing LossHipGIEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
3 In the decision on appeal, the BVA found no evidence of nexus with respect to the claims for hearing loss and back disability.
The appellant, through counsel, did not address in his brief whether these claims are well grounded; in fact, he appears to concede they are not.
See Appellant's Brief at 6 (admitting that "there may be no medical evidence of nexus connecting the current disabilities with those arising on active duty").
In the alternative, he argues that even if the Court deems the issue to have been pressed on appeal, the claims should be found not well grounded because the requisite nexus evidence is missing.
He further argues that the "duty to assist a not-well-grounded claim" issue was not raised below and should not be considered by the Court in the first instance.
ANALYSIS The appellant's entire appeal rests on the argument that, by virtue of various regulations, Manual M21-1 provisions, and C&P policy concerning the development of claims, VA has taken upon itself a duty to assist this appellant even though he has not submitted a well-grounded claim.
133, 138, (1990), this Court has discerned a Congressional intent to create a chronological process whereby appellants who have met the requisite burden, and only those appellants, are entitled to the benefit of VA's duty to assist.
In so doing, it rejected the appellant's argument that the Secretary's duty to assist is not conditional upon the submission of a well-grounded claim.
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 →