CAVC Case 97-459: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · November 18, 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.
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
BackHearing LossEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
at 101) and, in response, was notified by the RO that he must submit new and material evidence in order to reopen his claim (R.
at 180-93), the hearing officer, in February 1989, issued a decision determining that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the appellant's claim for service connection for retinitis pigmentosa.
A subsequent Board decision, dated in December 1989, determined that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claim for service connection for retinitis pigmentosa.
In January 1990, the appellant submitted to the Board a motion for reconsideration of the Board's December 1989 decision, contending, inter alia, that the Board had failed to consider G.
A Board decision, dated in May 1992, determined that the appellant had submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claim and that service connection for retinitis pigmentosa had been established.
In addressing the appellant's contentions regarding an earlier effective date for service connection for retinitis pigmentosa, the Board noted 5 that the appellant had alleged that there had been CUE "in all decisions rendered from 1963 to 1992.
The Board's decision to reopen the claim and subsequently grant it was based solely upon the submission of new and material evidence which tended to show that the veteran's condition [was] incurred during service.
Consequently, the Board determined that "the provisions of 38 C.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not New Material|Duty To Assist|Cue
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 →