CAVC Case 98-157: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · · HOLDAWAY, 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
Back ConditionService ConnectionReopenIncreased RatingPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
In August 1984, the VARO notified the appellant that new and material evidence was required to reopen his claim.
The VARO denied the request to reopen because the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence.
In May 1990, the claim was denied because the result of his eye examination indicated that his problem was not related to [his] service[-]connected disability.
The VARO notified the appellant that this claim was a duplicate claim [which was] previously submitted, and that it was necessary for him to submit new and material evidence which ha[d] not been previously considered .
In a January 1993 decision, the Board found that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claims for service connection for headaches, back disorder, stomach disorder, or an increased rating for conjunctivitis.
In September 1994, the VARO issued a rating decision which denied an increased rating for conjunctivitis, denied service connection for a skin condition related to Agent Orange exposure, and stated that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his claims for service connection for headaches, back problems, and a stomach disorder.
A rating decision was issued denying an increased evaluation for conjunctivitis, denying service connection for a skin condition resulting from exposure to Agent Orange, and finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the appellant's claims.
The appellant offered testimony only on the issue of new and material evidence to reopen his claim for the back injury, headaches and stomach injuries.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Duty To Assist
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 →