CAVC Case 96-1624: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · July 21, 1998 · NEBEKER, 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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackSleep ApneaHipHeadacheEye
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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackSleep ApneaHipHeadacheEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Board concluded that the veteran did not suffer from any disability as a result of the administration of LSD-25.
The Board therefore did not address whether the administration of the LSD-25 involved any fault or accident on the part of VA.
The Board noted initially that the previous denials of the veteran's claim were based upon 38 C.
115), the Board determined that a de novo review of the veteran's claim was required.
After carefully reviewing the above opinions, as well as all of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against granting benefits under the provisions of 38 U.
In light of this opinion the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the appellant did not incur or aggravate a seizure disorder as the result of VA medical treatment in 1967.
The Board further finds that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the veteran did not incur a superimposed disability as the result of VA medical treatment in 1967.
After this extensive review of all of the evidence of record, both favorable and unfavorable to the veteran, the Board found that the preponderance of the evidence was against the veteran's claim.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|Preponderance Against
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 →