BVA decisions by condition
Hammer toe: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a hammer toe issue in 733 decisions. It granted the hammer toe issue in 19.2% of them, close to the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 34.8%, and remanded it in 45.4%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 35.6% were granted.
Decisions
733
2017–2026
Granted
19.2%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
35.6%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
45.4%
Denied: 34.8%
Hammer toe outcomes by year
| Year | Issues decided | Granted | Denied | Remanded | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 62 | 16.1% | 38.7% | 45.2% | 0.0% |
| 2018 | 101 | 17.8% | 31.7% | 47.5% | 3.0% |
| 2019 | 103 | 15.5% | 38.8% | 42.7% | 2.9% |
| 2020 | 110 | 13.6% | 41.8% | 43.6% | 0.9% |
| 2021 | 100 | 20.0% | 40.0% | 37.0% | 3.0% |
| 2022 | 103 | 21.4% | 21.4% | 55.3% | 1.9% |
| 2023 | 128 | 17.2% | 32.8% | 47.7% | 2.3% |
| 2024 | 116 | 17.2% | 35.3% | 45.7% | 1.7% |
| 2025 | 124 | 20.2% | 40.3% | 38.7% | 0.8% |
| 2026 | 52 | 23.1% | 46.2% | 28.8% | 1.9% |
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 Other: dismissed, withdrawn or no clear outcome.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 hammer toe decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the hammer toe 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 | 123 | 61.6% | 28.4% | +33.2 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 40 | 65.4% | 33.5% | +31.9 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 110 | 63.0% | 32.0% | +31.0 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 104 | 55.7% | 30.6% | +25.1 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 203 | 47.2% | 30.3% | +16.9 pts |
| Lay statement | 607 | 36.6% | 30.2% | +6.5 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 66.0% of the decisions that granted hammer toe.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 31.2% of grants and 15.3% 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 hammer toe 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 | 351 | 32.8% | 38.4% | −5.6 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 541 | 33.5% | 43.8% | −10.2 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied hammer toe
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established7
- Caused by the service-connected disability7
- Already at the maximum schedular rating4
- Criteria for service connection met4
- Service connection established2
- Noncompensable rating warranted2
- Noncompensable rating warranted under DC 52822
- Secondary service connection granted2
Most common reasons in denials
- Already at the maximum schedular rating20
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim18
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service15
- Service records negative or silent9
- No current diagnosis8
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis8
- Criteria for compensable rating not met7
- Current diagnosis established5
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 hammer toe decisions
Granted
At least as likely as not related to service; Hammer toe is a recognized medical condition
Favorable private opinion from board-certified podiatrist; Opinion grounded in medical literature on foot biomechanics; Service treatment records document in-service foot pathology
All toes affected unilaterally; No claw foot diagnosed; DC 5282 criteria met
Denied
Evidence weighs against compensable rating; Did not manifest hammer toes across all five toes; Severity did not meet criteria for higher rating or analogous code
Examiner found conditions degenerative, not caused by jumping; Opinion: less likely than not related to service; No service treatment records documented toe problem
Evidence weighs against service connection; No diagnosis of foot disability related to service; Veteran's assertions lacked sufficient supporting evidence
Rules that apply to hammer toe 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 hammer toe 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 hammer toe 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.