BVA decisions by condition
Facial nerve (vii cranial nerve) paralysis: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a facial nerve (vii cranial nerve) paralysis issue in 1,221 decisions. It granted the facial nerve (vii cranial nerve) paralysis issue in 16.1% of them, below the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 37.9%, and remanded it in 45.7%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 29.8% were granted.
Decisions
1,221
2017–2026
Granted
16.1%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
29.8%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
45.7%
Denied: 37.9%
Facial nerve (vii cranial nerve) paralysis outcomes by year
| Year | Issues decided | Granted | Denied | Remanded | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 93 | 9.7% | 45.2% | 38.7% | 6.5% |
| 2018 | 149 | 13.4% | 42.3% | 43.0% | 1.3% |
| 2019 | 147 | 15.6% | 38.1% | 45.6% | 0.7% |
| 2020 | 139 | 9.4% | 44.6% | 44.6% | 1.4% |
| 2021 | 149 | 13.4% | 36.9% | 48.3% | 1.3% |
| 2022 | 146 | 14.4% | 27.4% | 56.8% | 1.4% |
| 2023 | 164 | 16.5% | 39.6% | 43.3% | 0.6% |
| 2024 | 174 | 21.3% | 29.3% | 47.7% | 1.7% |
| 2025 | 134 | 20.1% | 38.1% | 38.8% | 3.0% |
| 2026 | 76 | 22.4% | 44.7% | 27.6% | 5.3% |
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 Other: dismissed, withdrawn or no clear outcome.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 facial nerve (vii cranial nerve) paralysis decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the facial nerve (vii cranial nerve) paralysis 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 | 170 | 63.6% | 21.7% | +41.9 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 61 | 62.8% | 27.6% | +35.2 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 149 | 55.2% | 24.4% | +30.7 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 293 | 46.7% | 25.4% | +21.3 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 344 | 42.0% | 24.3% | +17.7 pts |
| Combat service | 67 | 34.2% | 29.6% | +4.6 pts |
| Lay statement | 942 | 26.4% | 46.1% | −19.7 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 65.0% of the decisions that granted facial nerve (vii cranial nerve) paralysis.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 31.0% of grants and 10.6% 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 facial nerve (vii cranial nerve) paralysis 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 | 556 | 28.2% | 31.6% | −3.4 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 845 | 27.1% | 40.0% | −12.9 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied facial nerve (vii cranial nerve) paralysis
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established19
- Caused by the service-connected disability16
- Service connection established8
- Criteria for 10 percent rating met4
- Service connection granted3
- 10 percent rating granted3
- Evidence evenly balanced2
- New and material evidence submitted2
Most common reasons in denials
- No current diagnosis56
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service35
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis34
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim30
- Service records negative or silent26
- Current diagnosis established16
- Criteria for service connection not met8
- Aggravated by the service-connected disability6
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 facial nerve (vii cranial nerve) paralysis decisions
Granted
Current diagnosis of essential tremor.; Private medical opinion found it more likely than not related to TERA.; Board found private opinion more persuasive than VA opinion.
VA examiner noted dysphonia likely secondary to tracheostomy-related trauma; Examiner's opinion found inadequate as it denied service connection despite acknowledging intermediate factor; Evidence in approximate balance, benefit of doubt applied
VA examination confirmed cranial nerve impairment manifested by drooling.; VA examiner provided positive nexus opinion linking drooling to service-connected myasthenia gravis.; Opinion based on examination, review of claims file, medical literature, and thorough rationale.
Denied
No competent evidence of current slurred speech; No persistent symptoms of slurred speech post-service; In-service lip injury conceded, but no link to slurred speech established
No current temporomandibular joint condition diagnosed.; Insufficient objective evidence for diagnosis.; Service treatment records showed temporomandibular joint within normal limits.
No medical opinions supported a direct link between the in-service fall and the subsequent hemiparesis.; VA doctor opined hemiparesis was due to post-service conditions (hypertension, diabetes), not in-service fall.; VA opinions found mood disorder not pathophysiologically related to hemiparesis and did not aggravate it.
Rules that apply to facial nerve (vii cranial nerve) paralysis 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 facial nerve (vii cranial nerve) paralysis 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 facial nerve (vii cranial nerve) paralysis 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.