BVA decisions by condition
Metatarsalgia: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a metatarsalgia issue in 559 decisions. It granted the metatarsalgia issue in 24.3% of them, above the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 29.5%, and remanded it in 44.7%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 45.2% were granted.
Decisions
559
2017–2026
Granted
24.3%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
45.2%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
44.7%
Denied: 29.5%
Metatarsalgia outcomes by year
| Year | Issues decided | Granted | Denied | Remanded | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 52 | 9.6% | 36.5% | 51.9% | 1.9% |
| 2019 | 76 | 19.7% | 27.6% | 52.6% | 0.0% |
| 2020 | 83 | 15.7% | 36.1% | 48.2% | 0.0% |
| 2022 | 80 | 31.3% | 22.5% | 45.0% | 1.3% |
| 2023 | 61 | 21.3% | 23.0% | 54.1% | 1.6% |
| 2024 | 72 | 37.5% | 22.2% | 38.9% | 1.4% |
| 2025 | 84 | 34.5% | 29.8% | 34.5% | 1.2% |
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 Other: dismissed, withdrawn or no clear outcome.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 metatarsalgia decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the metatarsalgia 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 | 98 | 81.0% | 32.4% | +48.6 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 86 | 75.0% | 35.8% | +39.2 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 77 | 71.8% | 41.2% | +30.6 pts |
| Lay statement | 440 | 47.4% | 35.2% | +12.2 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 157 | 52.9% | 41.2% | +11.7 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 74.3% of the decisions that granted metatarsalgia.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 42.6% of grants and 11.5% 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 metatarsalgia 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 | 279 | 49.4% | 40.3% | +9.1 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 416 | 45.2% | 44.9% | +0.3 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied metatarsalgia
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established20
- Caused by the service-connected disability7
- Service connection established3
- Evidence evenly balanced3
- Positive nexus opinion from VA examiner3
- Criteria for 10 percent rating met3
- Preponderance of evidence favors veteran2
- Metatarsalgia rated under DC 52792
Most common reasons in denials
- Already at the maximum schedular rating49
- Service records negative or silent9
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis8
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service8
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim8
- Current diagnosis established7
- Criteria for higher rating not met5
- Criteria for increased rating not met5
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 metatarsalgia decisions
Granted
At least as likely as not related to service; Metatarsalgia is a recognized medical condition
In-service physical training; Credited lay statements regarding trauma; Benefit of the doubt afforded
Evidence is at least evenly balanced; Resolving doubt in veteran's favor; Injury incurred during ADT
Denied
Negative report on separation examination; Lack of in-service complaints or injury; Veteran's lay evidence conflicted with contemporaneous denial
10% is maximum rating under DC 5279; Rating by analogy not appropriate for specifically listed condition; Pyramiding avoided by compensating foot pain under DC 5284
Service treatment records silent for foot disability; No current diagnosis of metatarsalgia; No evidence of functional impairment from reported pain
Rules that apply to metatarsalgia 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 metatarsalgia 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 metatarsalgia 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.