CAVC Case 98-354: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · May 12, 2000 · HOLDAWAY
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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackSkinEyeArthritis
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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackSkinEyeArthritis
Why It Was Decided This Way
In the January 1998 BVA decision here on appeal, the Board denied the veteran's claim for CUE in the April 1977 RO decision.
§ 5110(i) (when previously disallowed claim is reopened and allowed on basis of new and material evidence in form of service department records, effective date is date such disallowed claim was filed).
309(a) [(1976)] [sic] had been met constituted a breach of its duty to assist", and that "[u]nder Hayre[, supra], the appellant's 1977 claim to entitlement to service[-]connected arthritis should be considered unadjudicated or nonfinal.
at 1335 ("if the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims finds that the RO breached the duty to assist in 1972, then the 1972 RO decision is not final for purposes of direct appeal").
3d at 1331-34 (although the opinion recognized that a specific request for VA to obtain particular records may not be required in all circumstances in order for the duty to assist to be triggered); id.
at 1331 ("duty to assist may arise when a claimant simply refers to the pertinent private medical examinations or treatments without making a specific request").
Given the Federal Circuit's emphasis in Hayre on the need for VA to respond to assistance that was "specifically requested", on the fair "notice" aspect, and on the particular importance of SMRs, the Court concludes that Hayre does not require that a breach of the duty to assist such as is alleged in this case (failure to carry out, sua sponte, a VA examination) be considered such a grave procedural error as to have tolled the finality of the April 1977 RO decision.
We reach this conclusion on the assumption, but do not decide because we need not, that in April 1977 there was a well-grounded-claim requirement; that satisfying any such requirement was then a prerequisite to the triggering of a duty to assist; and that the RO in April 1977 had been presented with a well-grounded claim, see Hayre, 188 F.
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 →