BVA decisions by condition
Cataract extraction: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a cataract extraction issue in 1,827 decisions. It granted the cataract extraction issue in 10.9% of them, below the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 36.9%, and remanded it in 50.1%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 22.8% were granted.
Decisions
1,827
2017–2026
Granted
10.9%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
22.8%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
50.1%
Denied: 36.9%
Cataract extraction outcomes by year
| Year | Issues decided | Granted | Denied | Remanded | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 180 | 6.7% | 37.8% | 51.1% | 4.4% |
| 2018 | 242 | 7.4% | 39.7% | 50.0% | 2.9% |
| 2019 | 243 | 7.4% | 39.1% | 51.0% | 2.5% |
| 2020 | 203 | 6.4% | 42.4% | 48.8% | 2.5% |
| 2021 | 212 | 12.7% | 36.8% | 47.2% | 3.3% |
| 2022 | 209 | 12.4% | 31.1% | 55.5% | 1.0% |
| 2023 | 209 | 14.4% | 33.5% | 49.3% | 2.9% |
| 2024 | 200 | 15.0% | 36.0% | 47.0% | 2.0% |
| 2025 | 143 | 17.5% | 37.8% | 43.4% | 1.4% |
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 Other: dismissed, withdrawn or no clear outcome.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 cataract extraction decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the cataract extraction 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 | 259 | 57.9% | 13.8% | +44.1 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 217 | 47.1% | 17.5% | +29.6 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 581 | 40.4% | 14.5% | +25.9 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 72 | 37.1% | 22.2% | +15.0 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 485 | 31.6% | 18.8% | +12.8 pts |
| Combat service | 113 | 29.6% | 22.3% | +7.3 pts |
| Lay statement | 1,341 | 20.1% | 34.4% | −14.2 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 71.4% of the decisions that granted cataract extraction.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 21.6% of grants and 12.9% 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 cataract extraction 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 | 1,015 | 21.4% | 25.5% | −4.1 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 1,300 | 20.9% | 32.2% | −11.3 pts |
Cataract extraction claimed as a secondary condition
Decisions where cataract extraction was claimed as secondary to another service-connected disability (38 CFR 3.310), by that disability.
Why the Board granted or denied cataract extraction
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established29
- Caused by the service-connected disability21
- Service connection established12
- Criteria for entitlement met2
- Complication of service-connected diabetes mellitus2
- No contrary evidence of record2
- Aggravated by the service-connected disability2
- Preponderance of evidence favors service connection2
Most common reasons in denials
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service82
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim82
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis60
- Service records negative or silent38
- Current diagnosis established30
- No nexus to service established12
- No current diagnosis9
- No incapacitating episodes documented8
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 cataract extraction decisions
Granted
Current diagnosis of right eye cataract; Service-connected sarcoidosis; Evidence in equipoise regarding causation; Benefit of the doubt applied
Favorable findings from AOJ regarding current diagnosis and service-connected diabetes mellitus are binding.; Private and VA treatment records indicate cataracts were associated with diabetes.; VA examiner's negative opinion was inconsistent with treatment records and afforded no probative value.
Current diagnosis of dry eye syndrome and cataracts; Service connection for CKD with hypertension; VA opinions found aggravation by antihypertensive medications and CKD treatment; Opinions were well-reasoned and persuasive
Denied
STRs do not document cataracts or residuals from in-service left eye injury.; VA ophthalmologists opined less likely than not related to service.; Private orthopedic surgeon's opinion deemed speculative and lacking expertise in ocular diseases.
Minimum rating for aphakia met; Left eye nuclear cataract warrants 30% rating; No higher rating warranted due to lack of incapacitating episodes
No probative medical nexus opinion found; VA examiner found no direct or presumptive service connection; Evidence persuasively weighs against service connection
Rules that apply to cataract extraction 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 cataract extraction 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 cataract extraction 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.