CAVC Case 99-1038: Anxiety
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 4, 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
AnxietyBackHeartEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Secretary argues that the Court should vacate the Board's decision and remand the claim because the Board failed to provide sufficient reasons and bases for its determination as required pursuant to 38 U.
Although the Board correctly found that "only a VA physician is empowered to determine when a veteran who received emergency hospital care could have been transferred to a VA medical center," the Court finds, upon de novo review, that the Board erred in limiting its review of the VA physician's determination.
Here, the Board erred in determining that it could not do so.
Rather, the Board may determine the VA physician did not exercise sound medical judgment because he or she failed to consider certain evidence, or otherwise failed to account for why his opinion was contrary to overwhelming evidence that might have lead to another conclusion.
CONCLUSION In this case, the Board failed to make a factual determination as to whether Dr.
Therefore, because the Board erred in limiting its review of Dr.
KRAMER, Chief Judge, concurring in the result: I agree with the majority that a remand is required in this case because the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board or BVA) erred by limiting its review to whether a VA physician had determined under 38 C.
The Board concluded that there was no legal basis upon which it could have granted the claim, because only a VA physician is empowered to determine whether an emergency had ended and because in this case a VA physician had concluded that the emergency had ended before the appellant was transferred to Southwest Florida.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility
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 →