CAVC Case 96-47: Back

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 25, 1998 · KRAMER

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.

Rating Married Children

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)

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

See your full claim picture — free

Outcome

Denied

Decision Date

March 25, 1998

Judge

KRAMER

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

Back Shoulder Hip Skin Heart GI TDIU Eye

Issues on Appeal

BackShoulderHipSkinHeartGITDIUEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

In April 1993, after reviewing the appellant’s claim de novo, the Board denied service connection for a gastrointestinal condition.

been medically demonstrated and any current gastrointestinal disorder that the veteran may have was not related to service or any other incident thereof; and (6) this case does not present a question of medical complexity or controversy such as to warrant obtaining an opinion from an independent medical expert.

The Board concluded that a chronic gastrointestinal disability was not incurred in or aggravated by service and that an ulcer may not be presumed to have been incurred in service.

Analysis On appeal, the appellant raises the following three arguments: (1) The Board failed to apply properly 38 U.

Hallstone; and (3) the Board failed to consider whether the veteran's claim for service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder included a claim for secondary service connection.

A well-grounded service-connection claim generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service 6 incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the asserted in-service injury or disease and a current disability.

Brown, concluded as follows regarding Collette: It is unclear whether in setting forth this analysis the Federal Circuit intended to alter the medical nexus requirement set forth in Caluza[, 7 Vet.

at 507] (holding that section 1154(b) relates only to what happened in service ("what happened then") and does not excuse need for medical evidence of nexus to service, and that term "service connection" in that statute means "service incurrence or aggravation.

Authorities Cited

Arnesen v. BrownAshley v. DerwinskiAustin v. BrownBagby v. DerwinskiBarrera v. GoberBrock v. BrownButts v. BrownChipego v. BrownCollaro v. WestCosman v. PrincipiDaniels v. BrownEdenfield v. BrownEpps v. GoberGrantham v. BrownGrottveit v. BrownHeuer v. BrownIn Collette v. BrownIsenbart v. BrownJaquay v. WestJensen v. BrownJohnston v. BrownJunstrom v. BrownLedford v. WestLibertine v. BrownMurphy v. DerwinskiPrenzler v. DerwinskiQuarles v. DerwinskiRabideau v. DerwinskiReiber v. BrownRobinette v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.2538 CFR 19.3038 CFR 3.103(b)(1)38 CFR 3.103(b)(2)38 CFR 3.303(a)38 CFR 3.304(d) (1997)38 USC 111038 USC 111138 USC 1154(b)38 USC 5103(a)38 USC 5104(b)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7105(d)(1)38 USC 725138 USC 7252(a)38 USC 7252(b)38 USC 7261(a)(1)38 USC 7261(a)(3)38 USC 7261(b)

Denial Type

No Nexus

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 →