CAVC Case 96-1574: Psychiatric

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · November 16, 1998 · 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.

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
Affirmed / Denied
Decision Date
November 16, 1998
Judge
FARLEY
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PsychiatricBackKneeHipAnkleTDIUArthritisHypertension

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

PsychiatricBackKneeHipAnkleTDIUArthritisHypertension

Why It Was Decided This Way

In a November 3, 1973, BVA decision, the Board determined that "[t]he veteran does not have an identifiable disease entity involving the low back, thighs[,] and legs related to the service-connected foot disorder" and therefore "a disorder of the back, thighs[,] and legs is not due to or the result of the service-connected foot disorder.

On April 13, 1981, the BVA issued a decision referring the matters concerning chronic conditions of the appellant's back and legs, as well as his nervous condition, to the RO because he was not service connected for those conditions.

Subsequent undated correspondence from the VA notified the appellant that new and material evidence was needed to reopen his claims for service connection for ankle, knee, hip, and back conditions, and for hypertension because those claims had been previously denied and the appeal period had ended.

In the September 19, 1996, decision here on appeal, the Board found, inter alia, that (1) new and material evidence had been presented and that it therefore reviewed de novo the rating decision of December 1992 denying service connection for knee and back disabilities secondary to service- connected bilateral pes planus; (2) the preponderance of the evidence was against the appellant's claim for service connection of a bilateral knee disorder; (3) the appellant did not currently have a disease process or relating disability of either knee attributable to his service-connected pes planus; and, (4) the appellant's claim for service connection was well grounded and all relevant facts had been developed.

New and Material Evidence Section 7104(b) of title 38, U.

Section 5108 of title 38 states that "[i]f new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim.

9 Therefore, once a BVA decision becomes final under section 7104(b), "the Board does not have jurisdiction to consider [the previously adjudicated claim] unless new and material evidence is presented, and before the Board may reopen such a claim, it must so find.

167, 171 (1996) (When new and material evidence has not been submitted in a previously disallowed claim "[f]urther analysis .

Authorities Cited

Anderson v. CityBarnett v. BrownButler v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiEpps v. BrownEpps v. GoberFossie v. WestGilbert v. DerwinskiGrivois v. BrownGrottveit v. BrownHodge v. WestIn Caluza v. BrownJones v. BrownKirwin v. BrownLedford v. WestLocher v. BrownMurphy v. DerwinskiOwens v. BrownSee Hicks v. BrownSee Lathan v. BrownSpencer v. BrownSpurgeon v. BrownStegall v. WestThompson v. DerwinskiVoyles v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 3.156(a) (1997)38 CFR 3.310(a)38 CFR 3.310(a) (1997)38 CFR 4.4038 USC 111038 USC 5107(a)38 USC 510838 USC 7104(b)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7252(a)38 USC 7261(a)38 USC 7261(a)(4)

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|Not New Material|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.