{"page":"https://casescribe.ai/explorer/conditions/cervical-spine-disability","generated_at":"2026-10-03T18:34:07.759Z","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":"Cervical spine disability","all_conditions_granted_pct":19.4,"decisions":759,"years":"2017-2026","granted_pct":0.5,"denied_pct":8.4,"remanded_pct":88.1,"granted_on_merits_pct":5.9,"by_year":[{"year":2017,"issues":38,"granted_pct":0,"denied_pct":7.9,"remanded_pct":86.8},{"year":2018,"issues":81,"granted_pct":0,"denied_pct":8.6,"remanded_pct":86.4},{"year":2019,"issues":87,"granted_pct":2.3,"denied_pct":9.2,"remanded_pct":88.5},{"year":2020,"issues":75,"granted_pct":0,"denied_pct":10.7,"remanded_pct":85.3},{"year":2021,"issues":79,"granted_pct":0,"denied_pct":7.6,"remanded_pct":88.6},{"year":2022,"issues":98,"granted_pct":0,"denied_pct":3.1,"remanded_pct":91.8},{"year":2023,"issues":91,"granted_pct":0,"denied_pct":7.7,"remanded_pct":89},{"year":2024,"issues":97,"granted_pct":1,"denied_pct":10.3,"remanded_pct":88.7},{"year":2025,"issues":87,"granted_pct":1.1,"denied_pct":12.6,"remanded_pct":83.9},{"year":2026,"issues":27,"granted_pct":0,"denied_pct":3.7,"remanded_pct":96.3}],"benefit_of_doubt_in_grants_pct":100,"evidence_on_merits":[{"evidence":"va_exam_favorable","decisions_with":167,"granted_pct_with":9.1,"granted_pct_without":5.3},{"evidence":"va_exam_unfavorable","decisions_with":636,"granted_pct_with":6.1,"granted_pct_without":5.3},{"evidence":"nexus_positive","decisions_with":194,"granted_pct_with":25,"granted_pct_without":3.3},{"evidence":"nexus_negative","decisions_with":441,"granted_pct_with":5.6,"granted_pct_without":6.3},{"evidence":"private_opinion","decisions_with":289,"granted_pct_with":13.6,"granted_pct_without":2.2},{"evidence":"treating_physician","decisions_with":46,"granted_pct_with":50,"granted_pct_without":4.5},{"evidence":"lay_statement","decisions_with":669,"granted_pct_with":6.4,"granted_pct_without":4.8},{"evidence":"combat_service","decisions_with":53,"granted_pct_with":40,"granted_pct_without":3.2}],"top_reasons":{"granted":[{"reason":"competent and credible lay evidence of in-service neck pain and continuity of symptoms","decisions":1},{"reason":"competent and credible va medical opinion","decisions":1},{"reason":"competent evidence indicates neck disability related to active duty service","decisions":1},{"reason":"current diagnosis established","decisions":1},{"reason":"evidence is evenly balanced regarding relationship to service","decisions":1},{"reason":"veteran's statements regarding in-service injury and onset/progression of pain are credible","decisions":1}],"denied":[{"reason":"criteria for rating in excess of 30 percent not met","decisions":1},{"reason":"disability did not manifest by ankylosis","decisions":1},{"reason":"evidence persuasively against finding service connection","decisions":1},{"reason":"service treatment records do not corroborate in-service neck injury","decisions":1},{"reason":"va examiner: less likely than not related to service","decisions":1},{"reason":"veteran's lay assertions insufficient to establish service connection without competent medical nexus","decisions":1}]},"recent_examples":{"granted":[{"case_id":"25004555","year":2025,"judge":"HARVEY P. ROBERTS","rationale":"Resolving reasonable doubt in Veteran's favor; Competent and credible VA medical opinion; Opinion found current disability related to active service"},{"case_id":"A24049697","year":2024,"judge":"JONATHAN HAGER","rationale":"Competent and credible lay evidence of in-service neck pain and continuity of symptoms.; Evidence is evenly balanced regarding relationship to service.; Reasonable doubt resolved in favor of the veteran."},{"case_id":"19183432","year":2019,"judge":"M. DONOHUE","rationale":"Competent evidence indicates neck disability related to active duty service.; Veteran's statements regarding in-service injury and onset/progression of pain are credible.; Evidence found to be in equipoise regarding nexus to service."}],"denied":[{"case_id":"A25058684","year":2025,"judge":"TIMOTHY COTHREL","rationale":"Criteria for rating in excess of 30 percent not met; Disability did not manifest by ankylosis"},{"case_id":"A24059525","year":2024,"judge":"M. C. GRAHAM","rationale":"Evidence persuasively against finding service connection.; Criteria for entitlement not met."},{"case_id":"21052242","year":2021,"judge":"LESLEY A. REIN","rationale":"Service treatment records do not corroborate in-service neck injury.; VA examiner found neck disability less likely than not related to service.; Veteran's lay assertions insufficient to establish service connection without competent medical nexus."}]},"how_va_rates":null,"rules":[]}}