BVA decisions by condition
Aneurysm any large artery: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a aneurysm any large artery issue in 800 decisions. It granted the aneurysm any large artery issue in 12.8% of them, below the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 30.5%, and remanded it in 55.4%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 29.5% were granted.
Decisions
800
2017–2026
Granted
12.8%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
29.5%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
55.4%
Denied: 30.5%
Aneurysm any large artery outcomes by year
| Year | Issues decided | Granted | Denied | Remanded | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 85 | 7.1% | 34.1% | 57.6% | 1.2% |
| 2019 | 115 | 13.0% | 33.0% | 51.3% | 2.6% |
| 2020 | 89 | 7.9% | 30.3% | 60.7% | 1.1% |
| 2021 | 102 | 9.8% | 28.4% | 60.8% | 1.0% |
| 2022 | 87 | 11.5% | 27.6% | 60.9% | 0.0% |
| 2023 | 97 | 13.4% | 26.8% | 55.7% | 4.1% |
| 2024 | 84 | 20.2% | 21.4% | 58.3% | 0.0% |
| 2025 | 97 | 16.5% | 30.9% | 49.5% | 3.1% |
Each row counts issues (each condition the Board decided), so the shares add up to 100%. Other: dismissed, withdrawn or no clear outcome. Years with fewer than 50 issues are left out.
Evidence in granted and denied aneurysm any large artery decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the aneurysm any large artery issue on the merits when the decision mentioned it, compared with decisions that did not. These are associations, not causes, and evidence is recorded per decision, not per issue.
| In the record | Decisions | Granted when present | When absent | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive nexus opinion | 125 | 69.0% | 16.8% | +52.3 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 89 | 66.7% | 22.6% | +44.1 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 325 | 50.4% | 19.0% | +31.4 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 42 | 48.0% | 28.0% | +20.0 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 261 | 40.3% | 21.3% | +18.9 pts |
| Combat service | 59 | 35.7% | 28.9% | +6.8 pts |
| Lay statement | 557 | 22.7% | 54.8% | −32.1 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 72.5% of the decisions that granted aneurysm any large artery.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 19.6% of grants and 10.7% of denials.
Negative evidence in the record
An unfavorable exam or a negative nexus opinion often sits in the same record as favorable evidence, and the Board weighs them against each other. So these rows show how often aneurysm any large artery was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.
| In the record | Decisions | Granted when present | When absent | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative nexus opinion | 453 | 24.6% | 39.0% | −14.4 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 588 | 25.9% | 48.2% | −22.4 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied aneurysm any large artery
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established16
- Caused by the service-connected disability13
- Service connection established6
- Presumption of soundness not rebutted2
- Service connection granted2
Most common reasons in denials
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis35
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service32
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim21
- Service records negative or silent18
- No current diagnosis17
- Current diagnosis established8
- No in-service incurrence4
- Aggravated by the service-connected disability4
Numbers are decisions that gave the reason. Reasons are short phrases extracted by AI from each decision; common wordings of the same reason are grouped. Benefit of the doubt is reported above.
Recent aneurysm any large artery decisions
Granted
Private practitioner opinion noted hypertension's role in aortic dilation progression; Satisfied "but-for" causation standard for secondary service connection; Satisfied elements of current diagnosis, service-connected primary disability, and nexus
Favorable finding of current disability diagnosis; Favorable finding of presumed in-service herbicide exposure; Private medical opinion found highly probative for nexus; Benefit of the doubt applied due to approximate balance of evidence
Veteran diagnosed with aortic aneurysm.; Hypertension is now service-connected.; VA examiner provided positive secondary nexus opinion linking hypertension to aortic aneurysm.; Evidence found in approximate balance, resolving doubt in Veteran's favor.
Denied
VA examiner found condition less likely than not caused by toxic exposure.; VA examiner attributed condition to hyperlipidemia, not herbicide exposure.; Private physician's nexus opinion lacked rationale.
Competent and probative evidence weighs against service connection.; Aortic aneurysm attributed to aging, hypertension, or family history.; In-service findings (chest pain, heart murmur) not causes of aneurysm.
No in-service complaints, treatment, diagnosis, or pathology for cardiovascular disability in STRs.; First manifestation of aortic aneurysm and coronary artery disease occurred decades after service.; VA examiner opined asbestos exposure does not cause cardiovascular problems.; Private medical opinion linked coronary artery disease to cause of death, not service.; Lay testimony lacked probative value due to lack of medical expertise.
Rules that apply to aneurysm any large artery claims
- 38 CFR 3.303
Principles of service connection
Read it in VA Law Explorer - 38 CFR 3.310
Secondary service connection and aggravation
Read it in VA Law Explorer - 38 CFR 3.102
Reasonable doubt (benefit of the doubt)
Read it in VA Law Explorer
Research your aneurysm any large artery case
Narrow by year, judge, evidence or secondary condition, read the decisions, and export a research memo.
How these numbers are calculated
- Rates count decisions in which the Board decided a aneurysm any large artery issue, by the outcome of that issue. Other issues in the same decision can have different outcomes.
- “Granted on the merits” leaves out remands and dismissals. “All conditions” is the grant share across every condition issue in the data.
- The data comes from CaseScribe's AI extraction of public BVA decisions (2017–2026) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.