BVA decisions by condition
Atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter issue in 1,336 decisions. It granted the atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter issue in 20.3% of them, close to the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 25.8%, and remanded it in 52.4%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 44.0% were granted.
Decisions
1,336
2017–2026
Granted
20.3%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
44.0%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
52.4%
Denied: 25.8%
Atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter outcomes by year
| Year | Issues decided | Granted | Denied | Remanded | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 62 | 14.5% | 38.7% | 45.2% | 1.6% |
| 2018 | 127 | 18.1% | 31.5% | 48.0% | 2.4% |
| 2019 | 164 | 14.0% | 20.7% | 62.8% | 2.4% |
| 2020 | 151 | 13.9% | 25.2% | 60.3% | 0.7% |
| 2021 | 136 | 19.1% | 28.7% | 50.7% | 1.5% |
| 2022 | 159 | 20.8% | 28.3% | 49.7% | 1.3% |
| 2023 | 172 | 21.5% | 20.3% | 55.2% | 2.9% |
| 2024 | 142 | 21.1% | 22.5% | 54.9% | 1.4% |
| 2025 | 168 | 31.0% | 22.6% | 45.8% | 0.6% |
| 2026 | 62 | 29.0% | 33.9% | 35.5% | 1.6% |
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 Other: dismissed, withdrawn or no clear outcome.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 atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter 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 | 269 | 79.6% | 27.4% | +52.2 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 139 | 71.0% | 38.8% | +32.2 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 621 | 60.9% | 29.5% | +31.4 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 532 | 58.9% | 29.5% | +29.4 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 98 | 68.3% | 41.2% | +27.0 pts |
| Combat service | 93 | 60.4% | 42.6% | +17.8 pts |
| Lay statement | 880 | 34.6% | 69.7% | −35.1 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 80.8% of the decisions that granted atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 19.6% of grants and 8.4% 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 atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter 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 | 730 | 42.2% | 46.8% | −4.6 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 940 | 41.5% | 53.0% | −11.5 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established43
- Caused by the service-connected disability36
- Service connection established15
- Criteria for service connection met4
- Aggravated by the service-connected disability3
- Hypertension is service-connected3
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service3
- Obesity as intermediate step2
Most common reasons in denials
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis64
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service44
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim35
- Service records negative or silent33
- Current diagnosis established15
- No continuity of symptomatology14
- No current diagnosis11
- Atrial fibrillation is not a presumptive condition for herbicide exposure7
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 atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter decisions
Granted
Diagnosed with atrial fibrillation; VA examiner opined condition most likely due to ischemic heart disease/CAD; Proximately due to service-connected ischemic heart disease
Board is bound by favorable AOJ decision; Criteria for service connection met
Private medical opinion found condition at least as likely as not related to service; Opinion was well-reasoned, detailed, and consistent with Veteran's history; Reasonable doubt resolved in Veteran's favor
Denied
No cardiac complaints or treatment in service treatment records.; Separation examination normal for cardiac issues.; No evidence of in-service onset or nexus to service.
No competent evidence of herbicide exposure during service.; Lay statements regarding exposure lacked probative value.; In-service murmur deemed functional, not organic heart disease.; Post-service risk factors (age, hypertension, sleep apnea, family history) outweigh service connection.; VA medical opinions found less likely than not related to service.
No diagnosis of atrial fibrillation during service.; Chest pain in service assessed as musculoskeletal; cardiac testing normal.; Veteran's testimony of continued chest pain since service found less credible due to inconsistencies with medical records.; More persuasive evidence weighs against claim.
Rules that apply to atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter 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 atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter 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 atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter 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.