BVA decisions by condition
Arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease): BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease) issue in 11,747 decisions. It granted the arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease) issue in 27.8% of them, above the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 35.4%, and remanded it in 35.3%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 44.0% were granted.
Decisions
11,747
2017–2026
Granted
27.8%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
44.0%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
35.3%
Denied: 35.4%
Arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease) outcomes by year
| Year | Decisions | Granted | Denied | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 612 | 13.9% | 45.9% | 33.5% |
| 2018 | 1,039 | 16.8% | 44.0% | 35.8% |
| 2019 | 1,419 | 23.6% | 37.0% | 37.9% |
| 2020 | 1,629 | 23.6% | 34.8% | 40.8% |
| 2021 | 1,444 | 28.1% | 35.5% | 35.3% |
| 2022 | 1,510 | 33.7% | 33.6% | 31.9% |
| 2023 | 1,461 | 33.3% | 32.0% | 33.9% |
| 2024 | 1,104 | 33.3% | 30.1% | 35.6% |
| 2025 | 1,042 | 31.6% | 33.1% | 34.7% |
| 2026 | 487 | 39.0% | 34.1% | 26.7% |
Evidence in granted and denied arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease) decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease) 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive nexus opinion | 1,488 | 65.4% | 40.1% | +25.3 pts |
| Buddy statement | 522 | 67.2% | 42.7% | +24.5 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 1,315 | 61.9% | 40.9% | +21.0 pts |
| Combat service | 918 | 54.1% | 43.1% | +11.0 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 2,423 | 51.0% | 42.8% | +8.3 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 785 | 47.4% | 43.7% | +3.7 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 4,147 | 43.8% | 44.1% | −0.3 pts |
| Lay statement | 8,600 | 41.5% | 53.0% | −11.6 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 70.3% of the decisions that granted arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease).
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 37.6% of grants and 10.8% 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 arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease) 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative nexus opinion | 4,364 | 33.1% | 51.0% | −17.9 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 7,177 | 34.8% | 63.1% | −28.4 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease)
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established504
- Veteran served in thailand during vietnam era79
- Presumed exposure to herbicide agents52
- Caused by the service-connected disability45
- Conceded herbicide exposure35
- Presumption of herbicide exposure due to vietnam service30
- Ischemic heart disease is presumptively linked to herbicide exposure30
- Veteran diagnosed with cad30
Most common reasons in denials
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim486
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis346
- Service records negative or silent261
- No current diagnosis251
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service223
- No continuity of symptomatology131
- Current diagnosis established114
- No evidence of herbicide exposure67
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 arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease) decisions
Granted
Private medical opinion from treating provider found more probative; Opinion linked heart disability to military service in Iraq; Addressed Veteran's specific history and lack of risk factors; Resolved doubt in Veteran's favor
Current ischemic heart disease diagnosis.; Qualifying service in the Republic of Vietnam.; Presumptive link to herbicide exposure under 38 U.S.C. § 1116A.
CAD is eligible for presumptive service connection based on herbicide exposure.; No presumptive service connection due to lack of Vietnam service or documented AO exposure.; Board found evidence in approximate balance for direct service connection of herbicide exposure.; Veteran's lay statements regarding AO exposure were found credible and probative.; Benefit of the doubt applied to grant direct service connection.
Denied
No evidence of herbicide exposure in Taiwan.; No evidence of radiation exposure.; Condition did not onset during service or within one year of separation.; No continuity of symptoms from service to diagnosis.
No established in-service event (herbicide exposure); Service treatment records negative for heart disability; No VA examination required due to lack of in-service event
Heart failure symptoms at >5-7 METs; Evidence weighs against higher rating; Benefit-of-the-doubt rule not applicable
Rules that apply to arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease) 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 arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease) 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 arteriosclerotic heart disease (coronary artery disease) 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.