BVA decisions by condition
Mouth injuries: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a mouth injuries issue in 793 decisions. It granted the mouth injuries issue in 11.9% of them, below the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 42.4%, and remanded it in 43.6%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 21.9% were granted.
Decisions
793
2017–2026
Granted
11.9%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
21.9%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
43.6%
Denied: 42.4%
Mouth injuries outcomes by year
| Year | Issues decided | Granted | Denied | Remanded | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 90 | 11.1% | 45.6% | 34.4% | 8.9% |
| 2019 | 98 | 12.2% | 37.8% | 46.9% | 3.1% |
| 2020 | 104 | 7.7% | 47.1% | 43.3% | 1.9% |
| 2021 | 119 | 6.7% | 47.9% | 43.7% | 1.7% |
| 2022 | 95 | 12.6% | 29.5% | 55.8% | 2.1% |
| 2023 | 116 | 17.2% | 37.9% | 43.1% | 1.7% |
| 2024 | 98 | 9.2% | 50.0% | 37.8% | 3.1% |
| 2025 | 89 | 20.2% | 47.2% | 30.3% | 2.2% |
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 Other: dismissed, withdrawn or no clear outcome.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 mouth injuries decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the mouth injuries 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Favorable VA exam | 91 | 53.1% | 16.4% | +36.7 pts |
| Positive nexus opinion | 93 | 47.7% | 17.3% | +30.4 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 167 | 39.7% | 18.2% | +21.5 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 40 | 38.7% | 20.6% | +18.2 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 208 | 28.1% | 19.2% | +8.9 pts |
| Lay statement | 636 | 21.6% | 23.7% | −2.2 pts |
| Combat service | 46 | 14.3% | 22.4% | −8.1 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 63.8% of the decisions that granted mouth injuries.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 35.1% of grants and 12.8% 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 mouth injuries 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 | 366 | 20.0% | 23.9% | −3.9 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 567 | 19.5% | 32.1% | −12.6 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied mouth injuries
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established9
- Service connection established4
- Caused by the service-connected disability4
- Severance of service connection was improper2
- Presumed herbicide exposure due to vietnam service2
Most common reasons in denials
- No current diagnosis59
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim29
- Current diagnosis established22
- Service records negative or silent20
- Already at the maximum schedular rating9
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service8
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis6
- No evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation5
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 mouth injuries decisions
Granted
Evidence in equipoise; Reasonable doubt resolved in veteran's favor; Service treatment records show in-service polyps
Loss of taste is a symptom of service-connected sinusitis; Evidence establishes loss of taste; Morgan v. Wilkie supports secondary service connection for symptoms
Evidence in relative equipoise; Benefit of the doubt applied; Competent and credible testimony regarding jaw pain
Denied
No evidence of hoarseness, inflammation, thickening, nodules, polyps, submucous infiltration, or pre-malignant changes.; No evidence of stricture, obstruction, or paralysis with speech impairment.; Veteran denied current symptoms from polyps during VA exam.
Weight of evidence against diagnosis; No diagnosis in service treatment records; Post-service records did not diagnose anorexia; Lay assertions alone insufficient for VA exam
Evidence against nexus to service.; Discharge report did not mention epistaxis.; Private records silent for diagnosis until years after service.; No indication of service relation.
Rules that apply to mouth injuries 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 mouth injuries 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 mouth injuries 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.