BVA decisions by condition
Vertigo: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a vertigo issue in 824 decisions. It granted the vertigo issue in 13.5% of them, below the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 18.0%, and remanded it in 66.1%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 42.9% were granted.
Decisions
824
2017–2026
Granted
13.5%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
42.9%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
66.1%
Denied: 18.0%
Vertigo outcomes by year
| Year | Issues decided | Granted | Denied | Remanded | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 60 | 5.0% | 8.3% | 80.0% | 6.7% |
| 2019 | 66 | 12.1% | 16.7% | 66.7% | 4.5% |
| 2020 | 90 | 15.6% | 17.8% | 63.3% | 3.3% |
| 2021 | 76 | 9.2% | 26.3% | 61.8% | 2.6% |
| 2022 | 94 | 20.2% | 12.8% | 67.0% | 0.0% |
| 2023 | 103 | 11.7% | 17.5% | 68.9% | 1.9% |
| 2024 | 116 | 14.7% | 16.4% | 68.1% | 0.9% |
| 2025 | 121 | 15.7% | 24.0% | 58.7% | 1.7% |
| 2026 | 70 | 17.1% | 20.0% | 60.0% | 2.9% |
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 Other: dismissed, withdrawn or no clear outcome.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 vertigo decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the vertigo 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 | 177 | 66.7% | 35.2% | +31.5 pts |
| Combat service | 54 | 72.7% | 41.5% | +31.2 pts |
| Positive nexus opinion | 224 | 60.9% | 36.3% | +24.6 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 44 | 62.5% | 41.6% | +20.9 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 155 | 50.0% | 38.9% | +11.1 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 304 | 48.2% | 40.3% | +7.9 pts |
| Lay statement | 722 | 39.8% | 60.5% | −20.7 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 74.8% of the decisions that granted vertigo.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 41.4% of grants and 17.6% 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 vertigo 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfavorable VA exam | 687 | 41.4% | 51.4% | −9.9 pts |
| Negative nexus opinion | 480 | 37.5% | 50.5% | −13.0 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied vertigo
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established10
- Service connection established6
- Already at the maximum schedular rating4
- Caused by the service-connected disability3
- Continuity of symptomatology since service3
- Aggravated by the service-connected disability3
- Vertigo rated under DC 62042
- Vertigo diagnosed2
Most common reasons in denials
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service11
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis10
- Service records negative or silent9
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim9
- No current diagnosis5
- Current diagnosis established2
- Separate rating would constitute pyramiding2
- Caused by the service-connected disability2
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 vertigo decisions
Granted
Current vertigo diagnosis established by AOJ; Veteran credibly testified to taking anti-malaria medication; Service records silent on anti-malaria medication; Mefloquine prescribed to 10th Mountain Division soldiers prior; Approximate balance of evidence regarding prescription and nexus; Benefit of the doubt afforded to Veteran; Second VA exam provided strong probative value for positive nexus
Private physician diagnosed BPPV and found vertigo at least as likely as not related to service.; Physician noted Veteran had motion sickness in service.; Physician explained symptoms of motion sickness and vertigo can overlap.; Physician rationalized acoustic trauma from cannons may increase likelihood of vertigo.; Physician cited medical literature correlating vertigo and acoustic trauma.
Objective evidence of dizziness noted; Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran; No objective evidence of staggering
Denied
Postural dizziness considered a symptom of hypertension; No diagnosis of postural dizziness found; No in-service complaints or treatment for postural dizziness; VA examiner opined less likely than not caused by TERA
No current diagnosis of dizziness; Insufficient evidence of functional impairment; Lay testimony regarding symptoms and missed work was unclear
Vertigo is a symptom of panic attacks; Compensated as part of acquired psychiatric disability; Separate rating would constitute pyramiding
Rules that apply to vertigo 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 vertigo 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 vertigo 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.