CAVC Case 98-749: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · April 25, 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
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
BackCervicalTDIU
Why It Was Decided This Way
On appeal, the Board found that a preponderance of the evidence was against an effective date earlier than April 7, 1992, for the appellant's TDIU benefits.
Specifically, the Board found that the appellant had abandoned his 1984 claim for an increased disability rating.
The Court reviews the Board's determination as to the effective date of an award under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
In the alternative, the appellant argues that the September 1984 VARO decision is not final because it (1) failed to provide him notice of his appellant rights and (2) violated the duty to assist by failing to schedule him for a medical examination.
The appellant's second argument, that the September 1984 VARO correspondence is not final decision because the VARO violated its duty to assist, is based on the U.
The Federal Circuit, although finding that CUE did not exist, held that "a single request for pertinent SMRs [service medical records] specifically requested by the claimant and not obtained 5 by the [VARO] does not fulfill the duty to assist.
The Federal Circuit concluded that if "the [VARO] breached the duty to assist in 1972, then the 1972 [VARO] decision is not final for the purposes of direct appeal.
Applying this holding to the facts of this case, the appellant argues that the VARO violated the duty to assist by failing to schedule a medical examination.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Preponderance Against|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 →