CAVC Case 97-192: Shoulder
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2000-02-15 · 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
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
Service ConnectionEffective DateReopenDic
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant appeals a November 14, 1996, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision that determined that no new and material evidence had been presented to reopen a decision under 38 U.
Moreover, the Board found that because the claims file already contained the marriage and death certificates at issue, the evidence presented was not sufficient to reopen the appellant.
On February 8, 1999, the Secretary responded to the Court's order; he asserts that although declaration of forfeiture bars a person from receiving benefits, it was never contemplated by Congress or VA that the person could not attempt to reestablish eligibility for benefits either by presenting new and material evidence or by demonstrating clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the previous decision declaring a forfeiture.
156 (1998), whether new and material evidence exists to reopen the matter.
She also asserts that a remand is required to allow the Board, in the first instance, to address the forfeiture questions raised in the Court's briefing order.
Thus, as with claims for VA benefits, the Secretary has promulgated rules allowing for final forfeiture decisions to be reopened upon the presentment of new and material evidence or upon a showing of CUE in a previous final decision.
The Board determined that the evidence submitted was not new and material and denied reopening.
5108, the Court, on de novo review, also found that the evidence presented was not new and material and held that the Board did not err by not reopening the appellant's claim.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|Cue
Find Similar Decisions 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 →