{"page":"https://casescribe.ai/explorer/conditions/arm-impairment","generated_at":"2026-10-03T18:33:56.988Z","data_as_of":{"decisions":944125,"first_year":2017,"last_year":2026,"latest_decision":"2026-04-30","cfr":"2026-10-01","m21":"2026-09-29"},"about":{"publisher":"CaseScribe AI (VA Law Explorer)","source":"Public Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions (appeals of VA decisions, not VA's first decisions), M21-1 Adjudication Procedures Manual, 38 CFR Parts 3 and 4.","method":"Outcomes are issue-level: each condition the Board decided in a decision counts once. Decision data is extracted by AI and can contain errors. Rates describe past appeals and do not predict any claim.","disclaimer":"For research only. CaseScribe AI is not a law firm and this is not legal advice. Verify figures against the source decisions and regulations.","attribution":"Cite as: VA Law Explorer, CaseScribe AI, with the page URL."},"data":{"condition":"Arm impairment","all_conditions_granted_pct":19.4,"decisions":762,"years":"2017-2026","granted_pct":8.7,"denied_pct":40.6,"remanded_pct":50.9,"granted_on_merits_pct":17.6,"by_year":[{"year":2017,"issues":47,"granted_pct":8.5,"denied_pct":31.9,"remanded_pct":59.6},{"year":2018,"issues":117,"granted_pct":8.5,"denied_pct":40.2,"remanded_pct":46.2},{"year":2019,"issues":98,"granted_pct":1,"denied_pct":33.7,"remanded_pct":65.3},{"year":2020,"issues":127,"granted_pct":6.3,"denied_pct":52.8,"remanded_pct":39.4},{"year":2021,"issues":106,"granted_pct":10.4,"denied_pct":33,"remanded_pct":50.9},{"year":2022,"issues":130,"granted_pct":4.6,"denied_pct":38.5,"remanded_pct":56.9},{"year":2023,"issues":117,"granted_pct":9.4,"denied_pct":41,"remanded_pct":48.7},{"year":2024,"issues":69,"granted_pct":17.4,"denied_pct":36.2,"remanded_pct":46.4},{"year":2025,"issues":64,"granted_pct":15.6,"denied_pct":50,"remanded_pct":34.4},{"year":2026,"issues":29,"granted_pct":10.3,"denied_pct":48.3,"remanded_pct":41.4}],"benefit_of_doubt_in_grants_pct":65.2,"evidence_on_merits":[{"evidence":"va_exam_favorable","decisions_with":71,"granted_pct_with":26,"granted_pct_without":16.3},{"evidence":"va_exam_unfavorable","decisions_with":552,"granted_pct_with":15.4,"granted_pct_without":28.6},{"evidence":"nexus_positive","decisions_with":79,"granted_pct_with":22.2,"granted_pct_without":17},{"evidence":"nexus_negative","decisions_with":362,"granted_pct_with":11.4,"granted_pct_without":23.7},{"evidence":"private_opinion","decisions_with":195,"granted_pct_with":26.1,"granted_pct_without":14},{"evidence":"lay_statement","decisions_with":641,"granted_pct_with":16.6,"granted_pct_without":25.6}],"top_reasons":{"granted":[{"reason":"caused by the service-connected disability","decisions":7},{"reason":"current diagnosis established","decisions":5},{"reason":"already at the maximum schedular rating","decisions":3},{"reason":"new and material evidence received to reopen claim","decisions":2}],"denied":[{"reason":"no current diagnosis","decisions":51},{"reason":"preponderance of the evidence against the claim","decisions":37},{"reason":"no in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis","decisions":27},{"reason":"current diagnosis established","decisions":20},{"reason":"va examiner: less likely than not related to service","decisions":20},{"reason":"service records negative or silent","decisions":20}]},"recent_examples":{"granted":[{"case_id":"A26010637","year":2026,"judge":"JIMMY L. BARDIN","rationale":"Competent and credible lay testimony; No contradictory clinical evidence; Benefit of the doubt afforded"},{"case_id":"26001324","year":2026,"judge":"D. MARTZ AMES","rationale":"Evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's right arm disability is secondary to her service-connected lumbar spine and right-sided radiculopathy disabilities.; High probative value afforded to private medical opinions linking right-sided pain to in-service injury and MRIs.; Low probati… [truncated, 111 chars omitted]"},{"case_id":"A25107976","year":2025,"judge":"JOHN Z. JONES","rationale":"Existence of present disability confirmed by VA treatment records.; Disability proximately due to service-connected PTSD.; Prior favorable finding by AOJ that injury is secondary to PTSD."}],"denied":[{"case_id":"26004871","year":2026,"judge":"L.M. YASUI","rationale":"Evidence persuasively weighs against a rating in excess of 20%; Objective range of motion measurements did not support higher rating; Veteran's lay reports of symptoms and noted functional loss did not result in higher limitation"},{"case_id":"A26034454","year":2026,"judge":"CORY M. PICTON","rationale":"No current diagnosis of left arm disability; No functional impairment of earning capacity; VA examinations silent regarding left arm disability; Normal range of motion and strength in left upper extremity; Lay testimony regarding diagnosis not competent; Weight of evidence against claim"},{"case_id":"A26027302","year":2026,"judge":"K. PARAKKAL","rationale":"July 2024 VA exam showed flexion to 120 degrees, abduction to 90 degrees.; February 2025 VA exam showed flexion to 180 degrees, abduction to 180 degrees with pain.; Neither examination showed limitation midway (45 degrees) required for higher rating.; Painful motion already compensated; no ankylosis… [truncated, 23 chars omitted]"}]},"how_va_rates":null,"rules":[]}}