CAVC Case 99-2210: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · December 20, 2001 · FARLEY
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
BackHipAnkleSkinGIEyeArthritisRadiculopathy
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
BackHipAnkleSkinGIEyeArthritisRadiculopathy
Why It Was Decided This Way
5 In a Supplemental Statement of the Case and Hearing Officer's Decision of August 1996, the RO sustained the prior finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the claim for service connection for a back condition to include arthritis.
In that decision, the BVA found that new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for a back disability.
He also argued that the Court should modify its interpretation of the clearly erroneous standard of review so as to permit it to reverse a Board's decision that is merely arbitrary and capricious.
§ 7261(a)(4), in order for this Court to overturn a BVA finding, this Court must conclude that the finding was "clearly erroneous.
It is the duty of the BVA, not this Court, to assess the credibility and weight to be given to the evidence.
Because there is a plausible basis in the record for the Board's factual finding, the Court holds that the BVA's denial of service connection for a back, hip, and sacroiliac joint condition, including arthritis, was not "clearly erroneous.
The appellant argued that he was entitled to the "benefit of the doubt" because there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence in support of his claim.
§ 5107(b), veterans enjoy the "benefit of the doubt" with regard to factual issues material to their claims if the evidence is in equipoise.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|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 →