CAVC Case 98-572: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · December 19, 2002 · KRAMER, Chief 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
PTSDPsychiatricBackHeartEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The following month, the RO informed the appellant by letter that new and material evidence was required to reopen his claim that was denied by the RO on February 24, 1981.
The Board found that the evidence did not demonstrate that the appellant suffered from a psychiatric disorder, i.
The RO replied by letter informing the appellant that the Board's July 1990 denial of his claim had become final and that he would need to submit new and material evidence to reopen his claim.
In June 1993, the RO determined that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the appellant's claim.
At the June 1995 hearing, the appellant repeatedly stated that the new and material evidence issue was not on appeal and indicated that he was only appealing the CUE issue.
In its March 13, 1997, decision on appeal, the Board noted that the appellant had withdrawn the new-and-material-evidence issue from appellate consideration in his 1995 hearing.
The Board found that the 1981, 1982, and 1984 RO decisions were subsumed by the 1990 BVA decision, and, therefore, were not subject to revision on the basis of CUE as a matter of law.
The appellant also contends that his claim must be remanded because the Board failed to address his allegation that the RO committed CUE by giving him improper advice to reopen his claim, rather than file an NOD, after the January 1981 denial of his claim, and because the RO's misleading advice amounted to a due process violation that rendered the RO's decisions nonfinal pursuant to Hayre v.
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 →