BVA decisions by condition

Atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter: BVA grant rates and what wins

From 2018 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter issue in 1,274 decisions. It granted the atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter issue in 20.6% of them, close to the 19.9% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 25.2%, and remanded it in 52.7%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 44.9% were granted.

Decisions

1,274

2018–2026

Granted

20.6%

All conditions: 19.9%

Granted on the merits

44.9%

Granted ÷ (granted + denied)

Remanded

52.7%

Denied: 25.2%

Atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter outcomes by year

YearDecisionsGrantedDeniedRemanded
2018
126
18.3%31.7%47.6%
2019
164
14.0%20.7%62.8%
2020
150
14.0%25.3%60.0%
2021
136
19.1%28.7%50.7%
2022
158
20.9%27.8%50.0%
2023
171
21.6%20.5%55.6%
2024
140
21.4%22.9%55.0%
2025
167
30.5%22.8%46.1%
2026
62
29.0%33.9%35.5%

Evidence in granted and denied atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter decisions

For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter 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 recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Positive nexus opinion25978.8%28.7%+50.2 pts
Claimed as secondary60161.9%30.0%+31.9 pts
Favorable VA exam13670.1%39.9%+30.2 pts
Private medical opinion51259.6%30.2%+29.3 pts
Treating physician opinion9369.5%42.2%+27.3 pts
Combat service8461.4%43.6%+17.8 pts
Lay statement83735.6%69.8%−34.2 pts
  • The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 80.5% of the decisions that granted atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.
  • The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 19.5% of grants and 8.7% 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 atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.

In the recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Negative nexus opinion69843.1%48.0%−4.9 pts
Unfavorable VA exam89842.5%54.0%−11.5 pts

Why the Board granted or denied atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter

Most common reasons in grants

  1. Current diagnosis established43
  2. Caused by the service-connected disability34
  3. Service connection established15
  4. Criteria for service connection met4
  5. Hypertension is service-connected3
  6. Aggravated by the service-connected disability3
  7. VA examiner: less likely than not related to service3
  8. No opposing medical opinion of record2

Most common reasons in denials

  1. No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis56
  2. VA examiner: less likely than not related to service41
  3. Preponderance of the evidence against the claim34
  4. Service records negative or silent33
  5. Current diagnosis established15
  6. No continuity of symptomatology11
  7. No current diagnosis10
  8. Atrial fibrillation is not a presumptive condition for herbicide exposure6

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 atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter decisions

Granted

Citation Nr. A26038368David Gratz · 2026

Diagnosed with atrial fibrillation; VA examiner opined condition most likely due to ischemic heart disease/CAD; Proximately due to service-connected ischemic heart disease

Citation Nr. A26036667Paulette Vance Burton · 2026

Board is bound by favorable AOJ decision; Criteria for service connection met

Citation Nr. A26035565Anthony C. Sciré, Jr · 2026

Private medical opinion found condition at least as likely as not related to service; Opinion was well-reasoned, detailed, and consistent with Veteran's history; Reasonable doubt resolved in Veteran's favor

Denied

Citation Nr. A26032189L.M. Yasui · 2026

No cardiac complaints or treatment in service treatment records.; Separation examination normal for cardiac issues.; No evidence of in-service onset or nexus to service.

Citation Nr. 26004161Yvette R. White · 2026

No competent evidence of herbicide exposure during service.; Lay statements regarding exposure lacked probative value.; In-service murmur deemed functional, not organic heart disease.; Post-service risk factors (age, hypertension, sleep apnea, family history) outweigh service connection.; VA medical opinions found less likely than not related to service.

Citation Nr. A26027771C.A. Skow · 2026

No diagnosis of atrial fibrillation during service.; Chest pain in service assessed as musculoskeletal; cardiac testing normal.; Veteran's testimony of continued chest pain since service found less credible due to inconsistencies with medical records.; More persuasive evidence weighs against claim.

Rules that apply to atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter claims

Research your atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter case

Narrow by year, judge, evidence or secondary condition, read the decisions, and export a research memo.

Open VA Law Explorer

How these numbers are calculated

  • Rates count decisions in which the Board decided a atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter 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 (2018–2026) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.