{"page":"https://casescribe.ai/explorer/conditions/thigh-impairment","generated_at":"2026-10-03T18:34:07.119Z","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":"Thigh impairment","all_conditions_granted_pct":19.4,"decisions":748,"years":"2017-2026","granted_pct":20.3,"denied_pct":55.9,"remanded_pct":31.3,"granted_on_merits_pct":26.7,"by_year":[{"year":2017,"issues":23,"granted_pct":21.7,"denied_pct":69.6,"remanded_pct":4.3},{"year":2018,"issues":39,"granted_pct":10.3,"denied_pct":28.2,"remanded_pct":61.5},{"year":2019,"issues":103,"granted_pct":7.8,"denied_pct":48.5,"remanded_pct":42.7},{"year":2020,"issues":154,"granted_pct":17.5,"denied_pct":60.4,"remanded_pct":21.4},{"year":2021,"issues":162,"granted_pct":19.8,"denied_pct":59.9,"remanded_pct":20.4},{"year":2022,"issues":178,"granted_pct":19.1,"denied_pct":50,"remanded_pct":30.3},{"year":2023,"issues":173,"granted_pct":9.8,"denied_pct":53.2,"remanded_pct":34.1},{"year":2024,"issues":220,"granted_pct":15.9,"denied_pct":54.5,"remanded_pct":28.6},{"year":2025,"issues":264,"granted_pct":13.6,"denied_pct":60.6,"remanded_pct":25.8},{"year":2026,"issues":64,"granted_pct":21.9,"denied_pct":57.8,"remanded_pct":18.8}],"benefit_of_doubt_in_grants_pct":48.7,"evidence_on_merits":[{"evidence":"va_exam_favorable","decisions_with":87,"granted_pct_with":41.9,"granted_pct_without":24},{"evidence":"va_exam_unfavorable","decisions_with":600,"granted_pct_with":25.5,"granted_pct_without":34.2},{"evidence":"nexus_positive","decisions_with":64,"granted_pct_with":38.9,"granted_pct_without":25.4},{"evidence":"nexus_negative","decisions_with":169,"granted_pct_with":32.3,"granted_pct_without":25.1},{"evidence":"private_opinion","decisions_with":156,"granted_pct_with":29.7,"granted_pct_without":25.8},{"evidence":"lay_statement","decisions_with":601,"granted_pct_with":24.9,"granted_pct_without":35.4}],"top_reasons":{"granted":[{"reason":"already at the maximum schedular rating","decisions":6},{"reason":"current diagnosis established","decisions":4},{"reason":"granted 10 percent rating","decisions":3},{"reason":"meets criteria for 10 percent rating under dc 5253","decisions":2},{"reason":"reduction from 10 percent to 0% was improper","decisions":2},{"reason":"painful motion warrants minimum compensable rating under 38 c.f.r. § 4.59","decisions":2}],"denied":[{"reason":"already at the maximum schedular rating","decisions":49},{"reason":"preponderance of the evidence against the claim","decisions":28},{"reason":"benefit of the doubt / evidence in equipoise","decisions":13},{"reason":"criteria for compensable rating not met","decisions":11},{"reason":"did not meet criteria for higher rating","decisions":8},{"reason":"did not meet criteria for compensable rating","decisions":6}]},"recent_examples":{"granted":[{"case_id":"A26039203","year":2026,"judge":"LAURA E. COLLINS","rationale":"Competent and credible lay testimony regarding inability to cross legs.; Benefit of the doubt applied due to approximate balance of evidence.; VA examiner's finding of no limitation contradicted by Veteran's credible testimony."},{"case_id":"A26038722","year":2026,"judge":"PAUL R. CASEY","rationale":"Evidence supports functional loss due to fatigue during flare-ups.; Fatigue contributed to functional loss during ROM testing.; Warrants a 10% rating for left hip condition as to flexion."},{"case_id":"A26031919","year":2026,"judge":"LEETRA J. HARRIS","rationale":"Reduction from 10% to 0% was improper; No opinion on functional impact of improvements; Restoration of 10% rating"}],"denied":[{"case_id":"A26040590","year":2026,"judge":"T. RAYMOND","rationale":"Flexion of the right thigh not limited to 30 degrees (observed at 90 degrees).; Abduction of the right thigh not limited beyond 10 degrees (observed at 35 degrees).; Criteria for higher ratings not met."},{"case_id":"A26040378","year":2026,"judge":"T. MAINELLI","rationale":"No evidence of right hip extension limited to 5 degrees or less.; December 2019 VA DBQ showed extension limited to 30 degrees.; November 2024 VA DBQ showed extension limited to 15 degrees."},{"case_id":"A26038722","year":2026,"judge":"PAUL R. CASEY","rationale":"Veteran already in receipt of maximum schedular rating of 10% under DC 5251 for left hip extension.; Evidence did not support entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 10% for extension.; No evidence of exceptional or unusual circumstances to consider extraschedular consideration."}]},"how_va_rates":null,"rules":[]}}