CAVC Case 96-1764: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · Decmeber 3, 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
BackKneeHipSkinDiabetesTDIUEyeArthritisRadiculopathy
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
BackKneeHipSkinDiabetesTDIUEyeArthritis
Why It Was Decided This Way
§ 7104(b) prohibiting reopening of previously and finally disallowed claims except upon new and material evidence.
5 In the present case, the Board determined that the criteria for a rating above 30% for bilateral pes planus were not met.
The Court reviews Board determinations pertaining to the assignment of a disability rating under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review set forth in 38 U.
Finally, the Board properly did not consider the evidence of the veteran's lower-leg pain in its determination of the disability rating -- all of the relevant criteria for both a 30% and a 50% rating pertain to the foot area and there is nothing to indicate that the criterion of "pain" pertains to a part of the body beyond the foot for the purposes of DC 5276.
at 9), and that the Board erred by failing to adjudicate the matter fully (ibid.
Further, where the RO and BVA have failed to address an argument reasonably raised by a claimant in support of a claim over which the Court has jurisdiction by virtue of an NOD that satisfies VJRA § 402, the Court will remand the claim with directions that the Board address the particular argument(s) in support thereof.
In this case, the Board denied secondary service connection only as to DJD and diabetic neuropathy and did not discuss awarding secondary service connection for overuse, cramping, or any other lower-extremity condition (see R.
Hence, we hold today that the Board erred in its failure to address these other claims for secondary service connection for conditions of the lower extremities.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material
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 →