BVA decisions by condition
Kidney neoplasm of malignant: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a kidney neoplasm of malignant issue in 2,819 decisions. It granted the kidney neoplasm of malignant issue in 23.9% of them, above the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 22.9%, and remanded it in 51.5%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 51.1% were granted.
Decisions
2,819
2017–2026
Granted
23.9%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
51.1%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
51.5%
Denied: 22.9%
Kidney neoplasm of malignant outcomes by year
| Year | Issues decided | Granted | Denied | Remanded | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 200 | 21.0% | 30.5% | 45.0% | 3.5% |
| 2018 | 344 | 22.4% | 32.8% | 41.9% | 2.9% |
| 2019 | 345 | 26.4% | 26.1% | 46.1% | 1.4% |
| 2020 | 345 | 17.4% | 25.8% | 55.1% | 1.7% |
| 2021 | 299 | 23.4% | 19.7% | 55.5% | 1.3% |
| 2022 | 314 | 22.0% | 16.2% | 59.2% | 2.5% |
| 2023 | 325 | 28.0% | 17.8% | 52.0% | 2.2% |
| 2024 | 302 | 26.2% | 16.9% | 55.3% | 1.7% |
| 2025 | 283 | 25.8% | 20.1% | 51.9% | 2.1% |
| 2026 | 105 | 28.6% | 18.1% | 52.4% | 1.0% |
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 Other: dismissed, withdrawn or no clear outcome.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 kidney neoplasm of malignant decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the kidney neoplasm of malignant 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 | 605 | 87.3% | 31.9% | +55.3 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 247 | 81.8% | 46.5% | +35.2 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 1,069 | 66.8% | 35.4% | +31.4 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 174 | 74.4% | 48.8% | +25.6 pts |
| Combat service | 148 | 63.6% | 50.3% | +13.4 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 597 | 41.4% | 52.8% | −11.4 pts |
| Lay statement | 1,909 | 41.0% | 79.4% | −38.4 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 69.6% of the decisions that granted kidney neoplasm of malignant.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 23.3% of grants and 9.1% 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 kidney neoplasm of malignant 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 | 1,201 | 42.1% | 60.4% | −18.4 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 1,591 | 43.2% | 65.5% | −22.2 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied kidney neoplasm of malignant
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established86
- Presumed exposure to herbicide agents7
- Caused by the service-connected disability6
- Service connection established6
- New and material evidence received to reopen claim6
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service5
- Conceded herbicide exposure in vietnam5
- Veteran served in thailand during vietnam era5
Most common reasons in denials
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis85
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim85
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service81
- Service records negative or silent59
- No current diagnosis17
- No continuity of symptomatology17
- Current diagnosis established16
- No evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation11
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 kidney neoplasm of malignant decisions
Granted
VA failed to notify Veteran of elevated PSA results; Failure proximately caused continuance/progress of prostate cancer; Resolving reasonable doubt in Veteran's favor
Evidence of record is at least in equipoise regarding toxic exposures during service.; Private medical opinion provided moderate probative weight, linking prostate cancer to Fort McClellan exposures.; VA examination opinion afforded minimal probative weight due to conclusory nature and lack of direct evidence.
Reduction based on inadequate VA examination; Examiner's opinion lacked medical evidence and analysis; Restoration of 100 percent rating is warranted
Denied
No evidence of renal dysfunction meeting criteria for higher rating.; December 2024 VA examiner found normal kidney function (GFR 78).; Veteran's claim for higher rating not supported by evidence.
No in-service complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of kidney pathology.; No malignant tumor shown within one year of separation.; No continuity of symptomatology.; VA TERA exam found no nexus between lead exposure and kidney cancer.; VA physician's opinion linking cancer to asbestos had reduced probative value due to unconfirmed exposure and presence of other risk factors.
VA examination found cancer in remission with no residuals; No evidence of recurrence or voiding/renal dysfunction; Lay testimony less probative than medical evidence for rating criteria
Rules that apply to kidney neoplasm of malignant 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 kidney neoplasm of malignant 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 kidney neoplasm of malignant 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.