CAVC Case 96-1669: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 16, 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
BackShoulderHipEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
FARLEY, Judge: On November 27, 1996, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) issued a decision which (1) incorporated by reference a 1995 Board determination that new and material evidence had been presented to reopen a claim for service connection for a lower back condition, and (2) found that the appellant had failed to submit a well-grounded claim for that condition.
On August 17, 1998, the Court affirmed the BVA decision to the extent that it disallowed the claim, but held that the BVA had incorrectly determined that new and material evidence had been presented to reopen the claim.
The Board concluded that the appellant's spondylolysis and postural low back strain were "congenital or developmental defects and not diseases or injuries for which service connection may be granted.
In an August 1981 rating decision, the RO concluded that new and material evidence had not been presented and declined to reopen his claim.
The Board found that the additional evidence did not show incurrence or aggravation of a back disability in service.
In a December 1993 rating decision, the RO determined that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the appellant's claim for a back condition.
In a December 1995 decision, the Board found that the June 1981 statement from Dr.
Terry, as well as other evidence that documented a current back condition, constituted new and material evidence to reopen the claim.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|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 →