CAVC Case 97-2180: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · February 17, 1999 · Unknown
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
PTSDPsychiatricBackHearing LossHipEyeRadiculopathy
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
PTSDPsychiatricBackHearing LossHipEyeRadiculopathy
Why It Was Decided This Way
FARLEY, Judge: This is an appeal from an October 1, 1997, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) which, inter alia, (1) found that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen a claim for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); (2) determined that a claim for service connection for peripheral neuropathy, including as a result of Agent Orange exposure, was not well grounded; and (3) denied entitlement to financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile.
The exception to these rules states that "[i]f new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has specifically held that the Board may not consider a previously and finally disallowed claim unless new and material evidence is presented, and that before the Board may reopen such a claim, it must so find.
140, 145 (1991), we held that the Board must perform a two-step analysis when a veteran seeks to reopen a final decision based on new and material evidence.
First, it must determine whether the evidence presented or secured since the last final 4 disallowance is "new and material.
Under the new Elkins test, the Secretary must first determine whether the veteran has presented new and material evidence under 38 C.
Second, if new and material evidence has been presented, immediately upon reopening the claim the Secretary must determine whether, based upon all the evidence of record in support of the claim, presuming its credibility, see Robinette v.
Third, if the claim is well grounded, the Secretary may then proceed to evaluate the merits of the claim but only after ensuring that his duty to assist under 38 U.
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 →