CAVC Case 99-1390: PTSD

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · August 20, 2002 · 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

Rating Married Children

per month · per year, tax-free

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

See your full claim picture — free

Outcome

Affirmed

Decision Date

August 20, 2002

Judge

HOLDAWAY

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PTSD Psychiatric Back Skin TDIU Eye Hypertension

Issues on Appeal

PTSDPsychiatricBackSkinTDIUEyeHypertension

Why It Was Decided This Way

In the BVA decision presently on appeal, the Board found that because a September 1988 RO decision had denied service connection for PTSD (R.

The Board concluded that an effective date prior to October 26, 1995, the date that the veteran filed his claim to reopen, was not warranted for the veteran's reopened claim for service connection for PTSD.

The Court reviews questions of fact using the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.

In determining whether a finding is clearly erroneous, "this Court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the BVA on issues of material fact; if there is a 'plausible basis' in the record for the factual determinations of the BVA .

400(q), provides that the effective date for an award of benefits based upon new and material evidence, other than evidence from service department records, that was received after final disallowance of a claim is the "[d]ate of receipt of [the] new claim or [the] date entitlement arose, whichever is later.

The appellant does not assert that the Board's determination of the proper effective date was "clearly erroneous.

400(q)(1)(ii) (part of the regulation governing effective dates that applies when new and material evidence is received after final disallowance of a claim).

In Spencer, supra, the Court provided an in-depth analysis of the validity of the requirement that the Secretary adjudicate a previously and finally denied claim upon receipt of new and material 5 evidence relative to the claim.

Authorities Cited

Acton v. PrincipiBarnett v. BrownButts v. BrownCox v. BrownFlash v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiHanson v. BrownHatlestad v. DerwinskiLapier v. BrownLenderman v. PrincipiProscelle v. DerwinskiRabideau v. DerwinskiRowell v. PrincipiSee Lalonde v. WestSee Thompson v. DerwinskiSee Wright v. GoberSee Zang v. BrownServello v. DerwinskiSpencer v. BrownSpurgeon v. BrownStanton v. BrownSuttmann v. BrownZang v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 3.156(a) (2001)38 CFR 3.15738 CFR 3.157 (2001)38 CFR 3.157(b)38 CFR 3.157(b) (1962)38 CFR 3.157(b) (1998)38 CFR 3.157(b) (2001)38 CFR 3.159(c)(4)(iii)38 CFR 3.309(c)38 CFR 3.40038 CFR 3.400(o)(2)38 CFR 3.400(q)38 CFR 3.400(q)(1)(ii)38 CFR 3.400(q)(1)(ii) (2001)38 CFR 4.3138 CFR 4.31 (1992)38 CFR 4.31 (1993)38 CFR 4.31 (2001)38 USC 510838 USC 5110(a)

Denial Type

Not New Material|Duty To Assist

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 →