BVA decisions by condition

Corneal disease including scars opacities: BVA grant rates and what wins

From 2018 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a corneal disease including scars opacities issue in 1,391 decisions. It granted the corneal disease including scars opacities issue in 14.8% of them, below the 19.9% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 39.4%, and remanded it in 45.7%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 27.3% were granted.

Decisions

1,391

2018–2026

Granted

14.8%

All conditions: 19.9%

Granted on the merits

27.3%

Granted ÷ (granted + denied)

Remanded

45.7%

Denied: 39.4%

Corneal disease including scars opacities outcomes by year

YearDecisionsGrantedDeniedRemanded
2018
90
14.4%33.3%47.8%
2019
143
10.5%43.4%46.9%
2020
187
10.2%46.5%43.9%
2021
179
17.3%39.7%41.9%
2022
194
17.0%36.1%47.9%
2023
184
10.3%43.5%46.2%
2024
187
15.5%35.3%48.7%
2025
152
22.4%38.8%40.1%
2026
75
17.3%30.7%50.7%

Evidence in granted and denied corneal disease including scars opacities decisions

For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the corneal disease including scars opacities 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
Favorable VA exam20258.3%19.6%+38.7 pts
Positive nexus opinion21758.1%19.4%+38.7 pts
Claimed as secondary14140.6%26.0%+14.6 pts
Private medical opinion38633.0%24.8%+8.3 pts
Combat service6633.3%27.1%+6.3 pts
Treating physician opinion4629.2%27.3%+1.9 pts
Lay statement1,13725.5%38.3%−12.8 pts
  • The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 67.0% of the decisions that granted corneal disease including scars opacities.
  • The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 33.5% of grants and 14.1% 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 corneal disease including scars opacities was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.

In the recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Negative nexus opinion80522.9%36.1%−13.2 pts
Unfavorable VA exam1,10424.4%47.4%−23.1 pts

Why the Board granted or denied corneal disease including scars opacities

Most common reasons in grants

  1. Current diagnosis established33
  2. In-service injury documented5
  3. Caused by the service-connected disability4
  4. New and material evidence received to reopen claim2
  5. Continuity of symptomatology since service2
  6. Aggravated by the service-connected disability2
  7. Criteria for 10 percent rating met2
  8. Service records negative or silent2

Most common reasons in denials

  1. VA examiner: less likely than not related to service53
  2. Preponderance of the evidence against the claim49
  3. No current diagnosis48
  4. Service records negative or silent36
  5. No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis26
  6. Current diagnosis established22
  7. No incapacitating episodes documented14
  8. Criteria for compensable rating not met8

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 corneal disease including scars opacities decisions

Granted

Citation Nr. A26040565J. B. Freeman · 2026

In-service corneal scratches reported; Diagnosis of bilateral corneal scars; Benefit of the doubt applied

Citation Nr. 26005101Michael Martin · 2026

Condition noted on entrance examination; Residuals of redness/dryness noted post-surgery during service; VA treatment notes confirm ongoing need for eye drops; Evidence persuasively links symptom to active-duty service

Citation Nr. A26041007Cory M. Picton · 2026

Related to in-service LASIK surgery; Resolving doubt in veteran's favor; Favorable VA examination opinion

Denied

Citation Nr. A26037399John Z. Jones · 2026

Current diagnosis of dry eye syndrome established.; In-service exposures (environmental, herbicide, TERA) conceded.; Two VA examiners opined less likely than not related to service.; Natural aging cited as more likely etiology.; Weight of probative medical evidence against nexus.

Citation Nr. A26034819G. A. Wasik · 2026

No evidence of current diagnosis; Criteria for service connection not met

Citation Nr. A26033256John J. Crowley · 2026

Original grant based on erroneous factual finding of current diagnosis; Examinations indicated no current corneal abrasion residuals; Cataract diagnosis is a separate condition, not the claimed abrasion

Rules that apply to corneal disease including scars opacities claims

Research your corneal disease including scars opacities 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 corneal disease including scars opacities 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.