{"page":"https://casescribe.ai/explorer/conditions/lumbosacral-strain","generated_at":"2026-10-03T18:34:06.508Z","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":"Lumbosacral strain","all_conditions_granted_pct":19.4,"decisions":3493,"years":"2017-2026","granted_pct":28.2,"denied_pct":35.8,"remanded_pct":35.6,"granted_on_merits_pct":44,"by_year":[{"year":2017,"issues":79,"granted_pct":15.2,"denied_pct":41.8,"remanded_pct":40.5},{"year":2018,"issues":104,"granted_pct":23.1,"denied_pct":42.3,"remanded_pct":29.8},{"year":2019,"issues":243,"granted_pct":20.2,"denied_pct":41.2,"remanded_pct":36.2},{"year":2020,"issues":331,"granted_pct":23.6,"denied_pct":43.5,"remanded_pct":30.5},{"year":2021,"issues":379,"granted_pct":23,"denied_pct":44.6,"remanded_pct":29},{"year":2022,"issues":332,"granted_pct":25.3,"denied_pct":36.4,"remanded_pct":35.2},{"year":2023,"issues":392,"granted_pct":27.8,"denied_pct":34.2,"remanded_pct":35.5},{"year":2024,"issues":594,"granted_pct":30.8,"denied_pct":33.7,"remanded_pct":34.2},{"year":2025,"issues":874,"granted_pct":29.5,"denied_pct":30.4,"remanded_pct":37.5},{"year":2026,"issues":310,"granted_pct":37.1,"denied_pct":26.8,"remanded_pct":33.9}],"benefit_of_doubt_in_grants_pct":72.7,"evidence_on_merits":[{"evidence":"va_exam_favorable","decisions_with":565,"granted_pct_with":63.1,"granted_pct_without":39.1},{"evidence":"va_exam_unfavorable","decisions_with":3033,"granted_pct_with":42.1,"granted_pct_without":62.1},{"evidence":"nexus_positive","decisions_with":691,"granted_pct_with":75.3,"granted_pct_without":33.6},{"evidence":"nexus_negative","decisions_with":2019,"granted_pct_with":46.6,"granted_pct_without":40.6},{"evidence":"private_opinion","decisions_with":1056,"granted_pct_with":56.5,"granted_pct_without":37.2},{"evidence":"treating_physician","decisions_with":155,"granted_pct_with":58.6,"granted_pct_without":43.2},{"evidence":"lay_statement","decisions_with":3092,"granted_pct_with":43.4,"granted_pct_without":51.4},{"evidence":"buddy_statement","decisions_with":127,"granted_pct_with":64.4,"granted_pct_without":43.2},{"evidence":"combat_service","decisions_with":209,"granted_pct_with":57.7,"granted_pct_without":43.1}],"top_reasons":{"granted":[{"reason":"current diagnosis established","decisions":162},{"reason":"continuity of symptomatology since service","decisions":19},{"reason":"caused by the service-connected disability","decisions":18},{"reason":"va examiner: less likely than not related to service","decisions":7},{"reason":"criteria for service connection met","decisions":6},{"reason":"evidence evenly balanced","decisions":6}],"denied":[{"reason":"va examiner: less likely than not related to service","decisions":142},{"reason":"preponderance of the evidence against the claim","decisions":119},{"reason":"no in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis","decisions":62},{"reason":"service records negative or silent","decisions":49},{"reason":"current diagnosis established","decisions":47},{"reason":"benefit of the doubt / evidence in equipoise","decisions":26}]},"recent_examples":{"granted":[{"case_id":"A26040659","year":2026,"judge":"TIFFANY DAWSON","rationale":"Favorable finding of current disability by AOJ; Lay statements of onset in service corroborated by STRs; VA examiner's opinion against service connection was inadequately reasoned; Benefit of the doubt resolved in Veteran's favor"},{"case_id":"A26040078","year":2026,"judge":"SHAUN S. SPERANZA","rationale":"Service treatment records show in-service complaints of low back pain.; VA examinations were inadequate for failing to address pertinent evidence and provide adequate rationale.; Private medical specialist provided positive nexus opinion linking condition to service.; Veteran and service member lay … [truncated, 38 chars omitted]"},{"case_id":"A26040034","year":2026,"judge":"J. PARKER","rationale":"Evidence of onset of back pain in service in 2005; Chronicity of symptoms noted in service treatment records; Favorable post-service treatment records indicating onset five years prior; Inaccurate VA examination due to failure to consider all evidence"}],"denied":[{"case_id":"A26040031","year":2026,"judge":"B. D. WATSON","rationale":"March 2025 VA exam showed flexion limited to 80 degrees, combined ROM to 215 degrees.; Examiner noted localized tenderness but no abnormal gait or spinal contour.; Board found evidence did not meet criteria for >10% rating."},{"case_id":"A26038756","year":2026,"judge":"B.T. KNOPE","rationale":"Inconsistent lay statements regarding symptoms; Lack of contemporaneous service treatment record findings; VA examiner opined less likely than not related to service"},{"case_id":"26004894","year":2026,"judge":"THOMAS L. ENGLISH","rationale":"Current diagnosis confirmed by VA examinations.; STRs silent for low back complaints; denied recurrence.; Negative nexus opinions from VA examiners citing lack of chronicity and post-service etiology.; Board afforded low probative value to some opinions for failing to consider lay statements."}]},"how_va_rates":null,"rules":[]}}