Understanding the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and Important CAVC Cases

Veterans seeking VA disability for their service-connected health conditions may find themselves moving through the appeals system if they are denied benefits or granted an inadequate rating. While most VA appeals are handled at a regional office or by the BVA, some claims need to be escalated further, all the way to the CAVC. Below, we explain what the CAVC is, how it differs from the BVA, and some of the key CAVC decisions veterans should know about.

What is the CAVC?

The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) has existed since its creation by President Ronald Reagan in the late 80s. Like other federal courts of record, it is considered part of the judicial system, rather than a part of the VA. However, unlike other courts, the CAVC is solely responsible for handling BVA decisions related to VA benefits including disability, pensions, and education. The CAVC provides a higher level of review when a veteran believes the BVA’s final decision is incorrect.

Nine judges make up the court, including seven permanent judges and two additional temporary judges. They are typically appointed for a 15-year term by the U.S. president. Current active judges in the CAVC are:

• Chief Judge Michael P. Allen
• Judge Margaret Bartley
• Judge Coral Wong Pietsch
• Judge William S. Greenberg
• Judge Amanda L. Meredith
• Judge Joseph L. Toth
• Judge Joseph L. Falvey Jr.
• Judge Scott J. Laurer
• Judge Grant C. Jaquith

Retired senior “recall-eligible” judges may also occasionally be called upon to participate in the court. The CAVC primarily makes decisions from Washington DC, but these decisions affect U.S. veterans everywhere.

---

---

CAVC cases vs. BVA decisions

The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) was created to make decisions on VA appeals in a way that benefits both the claimant and the government. Odds are if you appeal a VA claim decision, your appeal will land in front of the BVA at some point, though many appeals are resolved at regional offices. 

A BVA appeal in the VA’s AMA system can be in the form of a direct review, a review with new evidence, or a hearing. Filing an AMA appeal with the BVA begins by filing VA form 10182 and selecting one of these three BVA lanes. The VA’s former legacy system handles appeals differently, but claims still often land before the BVA when appealed.

When the BVA makes a decision on your claim, it affects your claim, and your claim alone. For example, reading previous BVA decisions on disability claims from veterans with similar conditions or exposures to you may help you get a sense of how BVA judges consider or handle a certain issue. However, the BVA judge making a decision on your own disability claim may interpret things differently. You cannot cite a BVA case like you would a law; they do not set a precedent.

Many CAVC cases, on the other hand, are considered to have national jurisdiction. This means they set a legal precedent on how all VA claims decisions should be considered or handled in the future. CAVC cases are only precedential, however, when published by a three-member panel or all of the judges. A single judge will sometimes publish a decision on a case; in these cases, like BVA decisions, the decision does not set a precedent.

CAVC cases may also be remanded back to the BVA for further development or consideration.

Important CAVC cases

Because CAVC cases set legal precedents that can impact your claim, it’s important for veterans to be familiar with some of the most critical CAVC cases. We have selected a few CAVC cases veterans should be aware of.

Rice v. Shinseki (2009)

In summary: Rice v. Shinseki changed the way TDIU effective dates work.

The case: Army veteran Sterling Rice had developed PTSD due to his time serving in the Army during the Vietnam War. He began seeking benefits for this service-connected condition in 1998, starting a back and forth with the VA, which initially denied his claim altogether. As he appealed the decision, Rice also filed a claim for total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU). Several years later, he was finally awarded a 70% rating for his PTSD, which was granted one effective date for back pay, and was also awarded TDIU, which received a different effective date. 

The CAVC held that a TDIU request is not a separate claim for benefits, but rather an attempt to get the proper, adequate rating for the veteran’s service-connected condition or conditions. There is no such thing as a freestanding TDIU claim. Therefore, the effective date for Rice’s TDIU claim should date back to his initial PTSD claim’s effective date.

Rice v. Shinseki is one of the most important cases for our firm, as we primarily handle individual unemployability claims and the VA still frequently makes mistakes when it comes to TDIU effective dates.

Stefl v. Nicholson (2007)

In summary: Stefl v. Nicholson changed how C&P examiners report their findings. 

The case: Vietnam veteran Stefl filed for VA disability for a sinus condition in 1998. Stefl’s doctor wrote an opinion that the sinus disease was caused by exposure to herbicides like Agent Orange. Stefl submitted this medical opinion to the VA after his initial denial. A VA examiner, however, came to the conclusion the veteran’s condition was not caused by herbicide exposure because the sinus condition was not on the VA’s list of Agent Orange presumptive conditions. 

The CAVC held that the VA examiner’s medical opinion was inadequate and did not properly consider the medical evidence submitted by the veteran. The court also maintained that when a presumptive connection cannot be established, a direct connection should still be considered. Ultimately, examiners must now thoroughly explain the connection between their conclusions and the supporting data. 

---

---

Mittleider v. West (1998)

In summary: Mittleider v. West establishes that the benefit of the doubt goes to the veteran.

The case: Veteran Danny Mittleider was receiving VA disability compensation for his service-connected PTSD. He had also been diagnosed with personality disorders that were not service connected, and the symptoms of the PTSD and personality disorders were often difficult to distinguish from one another. 

The CAVC held that in a case such as this where it is impossible to determine which condition, service-connected or non-service-connected, is causing the veteran’s symptoms, the claim should be resolved in the veteran’s favor. The decision ensured Mittleider could receive a higher rating for his PTSD. This case reaffirmed the concept that VA claims should err on the side of the veteran when the evidence is in approximate balance.

Gilbert v. Derwinski (1990)

In summary: Gilbert v. Derwinksi maintains the burden of proof as “as least as likely as not” in VA disability claims, NOT “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The case: Korean War veteran Norman Gilbert filed for VA disability for issues with his back. He claimed that while in service, he fell well holding a machine gun and injured his back. The BVA upheld the original denial of Gilbert’s claim, saying any injury he sustained from a fall would have been temporary, and therefore his current back condition was not service connected. The BVA also claimed the veteran’s right to the benefit of the doubt did not apply in this case, as established by Mittleider v. West. 

The CAVC, however, held that a veteran should be given the benefit of the doubt when there is a balance of evidence for and against their claim.

Woods & Woods practices VA disability law nationwide

At Woods & Woods, we focus on helping non-working veterans with service-connected conditions get individual unemployability benefits and, in some cases, increased ratings. We also help survivors of veterans receive their DIC benefits. If you think we can help you with your claim, call us today for a free case evaluation. You won’t pay us unless we win your case.

Talk to Us About Your Claim: 
(812) 426-7200

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS