CAVC Case 97-1831: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · February 8, 1999 · 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
PTSDPsychiatricBackHipSkinHeartEye
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
PTSDPsychiatricBackHipSkinHeartEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
tion secondary to exposure to Agent Orange was not well grounded (claim 2); and (3) determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen a disallowed claim for service connection for heart disease (claim 3).
In the July 30, 1997, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board determined that the appellant's claim for a skin disorder secondary to exposure to Agent Orange was not well grounded.
In setting forth the laws applicable in the present case, the Board noted, inter alia, that [a] veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent (Agent Orange), unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service.
The Board determined that, in the absence of "medical evidence of a skin 4 condition related to exposure to Agent Orange," the appellant's claim was not well grounded.
The Board further determined that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen a claim for service connection for heart disease.
For a claim to be well grounded, there generally must be 5 (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury.
309(e) (1998), in the case of a Vietnam-era veteran, no direct evidence as to the in-service incurrence and medical nexus prongs is necessary when the provisions of those sections are satisfied.
Furthermore, the Court concludes that the Board erred in determining that there was no medical evidence linking etiologically the appellant's current skin condition to exposure to Agent Orange.
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 →