CAVC Case 97-828: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 30, 1999 · FARLEY

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.

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)
RatingMonthly (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
Granted / Denied / Vacated
Decision Date
March 30, 1999
Judge
FARLEY
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricKneeHipHeadacheEyeArthritis

Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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

PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricKneeHipHeadacheEye

Why It Was Decided This Way

In the 1997 BVA decision here on appeal, the Board denied the PTSD claim because it was "based on noncombat-related unverified stressors", and because corroboration of an in-service stressor was an essential element of his PTSD claim.

in a PTSD case is the equivalent of in-service incurrence or aggravation; and medical evidence of a nexus between service and the current PTSD disability".

The credibility of the evidence presented in support of a claim is generally presumed when determining whether it is well grounded.

The section 5107(a) duty to assist may, in an appropriate case, include a VA duty to seek to afford the claimant an opportunity to respond to a VA request for additional information when the information provided by the claimant is found to be insufficient, see Cohen (Douglas), 10 Vet.

Establishing service connection for PTSD requires (1) a current, clear medical diagnosis of PTSD; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a causal nexus between current symptomatology and the specific claimed in-service stressor.

To comply with this requirement, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the veteran.

at 235, 239), and medical-nexus evidence generally linking his PTSD to his service (R.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has held that a regulatory change in an evidentiary burden constitutes neither new and material evidence to reopen a claim nor an intervening change in law to create a new basis for entitlement.

Authorities Cited

Alemany v. BrownAllday v. BrownAnglin v. WestBell v. DerwinskiCarbino v. WestCarducci v. ReganDavis v. United StatesDixon v. DerwinskiDizoglio v. BrownDouglas v. DerwinskiEphraim v. BrownFletcher v. DerwinskiFugere v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiHayes v. BrownHenderson v. WestIn Carbino v. GoberKamen v. Kemper Financial ServicesKarnas v. DerwinskiKingston v. WestLedford v. WestLittke v. DerwinskiMorton v. RuizMurphy v. DerwinskiQuarles v. DerwinskiRobinette v. BrownRogozinski v. DerwinskiRouten v. BrownRouten v. WestSamuels v. West

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.9(a) (1998)38 CFR 3.103(c)(2)38 CFR 3.103(c)(2) (1998)38 CFR 3.15938 CFR 3.159 (1998)38 CFR 3.304(f)38 CFR 4.13038 USC 510138 USC 5107(a)38 USC 5107(b)38 USC 7104(a)38 USC 7104(d)(1)38 USC 7252(a)38 USC 7252(b)38 USC 7261(a)38 USC 7261(a)(1)38 USC 7261(a)(1) (1994)

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|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 →
Sponsored
Missing the medical evidence for your VA claim? REE Medical connects veterans with independent licensed providers for nexus letters and DBQs — $50 off through this link.

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.