BVA decisions by condition
Epilepsy: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a epilepsy issue in 854 decisions. It granted the epilepsy issue in 20.1% of them, close to the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 39.2%, and remanded it in 39.2%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 33.9% were granted.
Decisions
854
2017–2026
Granted
20.1%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
33.9%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
39.2%
Denied: 39.2%
Epilepsy outcomes by year
| Year | Issues decided | Granted | Denied | Remanded | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 67 | 17.9% | 50.7% | 23.9% | 7.5% |
| 2018 | 71 | 21.1% | 39.4% | 32.4% | 7.0% |
| 2019 | 88 | 20.5% | 33.0% | 44.3% | 2.3% |
| 2020 | 117 | 12.8% | 45.3% | 40.2% | 1.7% |
| 2021 | 104 | 15.4% | 46.2% | 35.6% | 2.9% |
| 2022 | 114 | 23.7% | 36.0% | 36.8% | 3.5% |
| 2023 | 112 | 18.8% | 25.9% | 54.5% | 0.9% |
| 2024 | 97 | 19.6% | 37.1% | 42.3% | 1.0% |
| 2025 | 80 | 27.5% | 33.8% | 37.5% | 1.3% |
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 Other: dismissed, withdrawn or no clear outcome.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 epilepsy decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the epilepsy 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 | 141 | 63.2% | 27.2% | +36.0 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 128 | 59.4% | 27.6% | +31.8 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 76 | 54.2% | 31.8% | +22.4 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 294 | 38.1% | 31.3% | +6.8 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 199 | 29.3% | 34.9% | −5.6 pts |
| Lay statement | 726 | 32.5% | 47.8% | −15.3 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 68.6% of the decisions that granted epilepsy.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 41.9% of grants and 12.2% 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 epilepsy 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfavorable VA exam | 674 | 32.5% | 42.9% | −10.4 pts |
| Negative nexus opinion | 475 | 28.2% | 41.4% | −13.1 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied epilepsy
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established14
- New and material evidence submitted4
- Presumption of soundness not rebutted3
- Caused by the service-connected disability3
- Presumption of soundness not rebutted by clear and unmistakable evidence3
- Reduction from 40% to 10 percent was improper2
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim2
- Continuity of symptomatology since service2
Most common reasons in denials
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim39
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis38
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service30
- No current diagnosis19
- Service records negative or silent18
- Current diagnosis established4
- Continuity of symptomatology since service4
- Seizure frequency did not meet criteria for higher rating3
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 epilepsy decisions
Granted
Competent, consistent lay testimony emphasizing convulsive and post-convulsive characteristics may establish frequency.; Veteran experiences minor seizures two or more times within a six-month period.; Evidence in approximate balance that seizure disorder manifested with blurred vision and twitching consistent with January 2025 VA exam findings.
Favorable finding of current epilepsy; Favorable finding of in-service concussion from MVA; Equipoise between current epilepsy and in-service concussion; Benefit of the doubt applied in favor of Veteran
No persuasive evidence of actual improvement in disability or functional impact.; Seizure rate and type remained consistent post-reduction.; Treating physician's letter and VA medical records support continuing seizures.
Denied
No in-service seizures documented.; Earliest diagnosis over 26 years post-service.; Probative medical opinions link seizures to non-service-related head injury.; Failure to attend scheduled VA examinations.
No diagnosis of seizure disorder confirmed by medical professionals; Symptoms attributed to anxiety or other conditions; Gabapentin prescribed for nerve pain, not seizures
No in-service complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of neurobehavioral disorder in STRs.; Separation examination showed normal neurological evaluation.; VA examiner opined less likely than not related to service, citing lack of substantiating evidence and post-service etiology.; Conflicting opinions regarding Camp Lejeune exposure, with majority finding no causal link to seizure disorder.; Secondary claim based on sleep disruption from service-connected disabilities found unlikely due to lack of medical literature support.; Presumptive service connection denied due to lack of in-service manifestation, continuity, or timely onset.
Rules that apply to epilepsy 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 epilepsy 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 epilepsy 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.