BVA decisions by condition
Cervical spine limitation of motion: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a cervical spine limitation of motion issue in 21,251 decisions. It granted the cervical spine limitation of motion issue in 13.3% of them, below the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 26.7%, and remanded it in 58.8%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 33.3% were granted.
Decisions
21,251
2017–2026
Granted
13.3%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
33.3%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
58.8%
Denied: 26.7%
Cervical spine limitation of motion outcomes by year
| Year | Issues decided | Granted | Denied | Remanded | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 1,226 | 7.4% | 30.5% | 57.4% | 4.6% |
| 2018 | 2,009 | 7.8% | 28.7% | 60.0% | 3.5% |
| 2019 | 2,410 | 8.5% | 27.5% | 62.4% | 1.7% |
| 2020 | 2,344 | 9.6% | 30.4% | 58.1% | 1.8% |
| 2021 | 2,372 | 11.2% | 28.6% | 58.6% | 1.6% |
| 2022 | 2,419 | 12.4% | 23.1% | 63.1% | 1.4% |
| 2023 | 2,615 | 13.5% | 23.7% | 61.0% | 1.8% |
| 2024 | 2,575 | 16.5% | 23.0% | 58.6% | 1.9% |
| 2025 | 2,623 | 20.7% | 27.5% | 50.8% | 1.0% |
| 2026 | 1,028 | 26.8% | 24.1% | 48.0% | 1.1% |
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 Other: dismissed, withdrawn or no clear outcome.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 cervical spine limitation of motion decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the cervical spine limitation of motion 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 | 3,294 | 69.2% | 22.1% | +47.2 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 1,048 | 59.4% | 31.4% | +27.9 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 6,591 | 47.4% | 24.1% | +23.3 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 2,051 | 53.1% | 29.8% | +23.3 pts |
| Buddy statement | 929 | 51.5% | 32.3% | +19.2 pts |
| Combat service | 1,169 | 48.5% | 32.3% | +16.2 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 3,950 | 35.1% | 33.0% | +2.1 pts |
| Lay statement | 17,671 | 33.4% | 32.5% | +0.9 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 74.8% of the decisions that granted cervical spine limitation of motion.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 47.6% of grants and 11.1% 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 cervical spine limitation of motion 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 | 11,276 | 32.1% | 35.1% | −3.0 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 15,496 | 32.5% | 36.7% | −4.3 pts |
Cervical spine limitation of motion claimed as a secondary condition
Decisions where cervical spine limitation of motion was claimed as secondary to another service-connected disability (38 CFR 3.310), by that disability.
Why the Board granted or denied cervical spine limitation of motion
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established406
- Continuity of symptomatology since service77
- Caused by the service-connected disability69
- Criteria for service connection met66
- Service connection established30
- New and material evidence submitted22
- Service records negative or silent20
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service17
Most common reasons in denials
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis836
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service654
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim596
- Service records negative or silent520
- No current diagnosis342
- Current diagnosis established305
- No continuity of symptomatology165
- Continuity of symptomatology since service109
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 cervical spine limitation of motion decisions
Granted
Current cervical spine pathology established; In-service injury (fall) confirmed by STRs; Treating chiropractor's opinion found probative and linked condition to service; VA opinions found inadequate for failing to address lay testimony and in-service injury; Benefit of the doubt applied due to approximate balance of evidence
Credible lay reports of persistent symptoms since MVA; MVA caused physical injuries; Established pattern of other service-connected musculoskeletal disabilities from same MVA; Imaging confirmed degenerative changes; No other post-service cause identified; Benefit of the doubt applied
Veteran reported neck strain from helicopter pilot duties; Private opinion more persuasive than VA opinions; Private opinion cited medical research on neck strain from posture/vibration
Denied
No current diagnosis of neck disability; No evidence of functional impairment; No complaints or treatments in service records
Current diagnosis of cervical strain acknowledged.; In-service event of neck pain in July 1998 acknowledged.; VA addendum opinions found in-service condition acute and resolved.; Current symptoms attributed to post-service occupational overuse.; Evidence insufficient to show chronicity or continuity related to service.; VA examiner opined condition less likely than not related to service.; Private opinion found inadequate due to lack of examination and conclusory reasoning.; Evidence persuasively weighs against service connection.
Service treatment records negative for cervical spine disorder.; Post-service treatment for cervical spine sprain occurred years after service.; Veteran's assertions of in-service event found not credible.; No evidence of in-service event or injury to cause current disorder.
Rules that apply to cervical spine limitation of motion 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 cervical spine limitation of motion 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 cervical spine limitation of motion 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.