BVA decisions by condition
Coronary artery disease: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2018 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a coronary artery disease issue in 1,180 decisions. It granted the coronary artery disease issue in 30.7% of them, above the 19.9% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 18.5%, and remanded it in 50.0%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 62.4% were granted.
Decisions
1,180
2018–2026
Granted
30.7%
All conditions: 19.9%
Granted on the merits
62.4%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
50.0%
Denied: 18.5%
Coronary artery disease outcomes by year
| Year | Decisions | Granted | Denied | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 264 | 22.3% | 26.1% | 50.0% |
| 2019 | 209 | 33.5% | 17.7% | 49.3% |
| 2020 | 150 | 32.0% | 14.0% | 52.0% |
| 2021 | 133 | 33.8% | 18.8% | 45.9% |
| 2022 | 128 | 28.1% | 12.5% | 54.7% |
| 2023 | 102 | 35.3% | 20.6% | 45.1% |
| 2024 | 91 | 31.9% | 22.0% | 49.5% |
| 2025 | 69 | 37.7% | 8.7% | 53.6% |
Evidence in granted and denied coronary artery disease decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Favorable VA exam | 134 | 78.9% | 59.4% | +19.5 pts |
| Positive nexus opinion | 154 | 78.0% | 59.8% | +18.2 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 153 | 76.7% | 60.4% | +16.4 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 57 | 72.4% | 61.9% | +10.5 pts |
| Combat service | 87 | 66.0% | 62.1% | +3.9 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 409 | 61.3% | 63.2% | −1.8 pts |
| Lay statement | 795 | 57.6% | 72.8% | −15.3 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 59.7% of the decisions that granted coronary artery disease.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 26.8% of grants and 7.8% 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 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 | 419 | 52.6% | 67.4% | −14.8 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 727 | 51.9% | 81.9% | −30.0 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied coronary artery disease
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established52
- Veteran served in thailand during vietnam era14
- Coronary artery disease is presumptively linked to herbicide exposure9
- Coronary artery disease is a presumptive condition for herbicide exposure8
- Veteran diagnosed with coronary artery disease7
- Presumed exposure to herbicide agents7
- Diagnosis of coronary artery disease6
- Caused by the service-connected disability6
Most common reasons in denials
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim21
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis18
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service9
- Service records negative or silent8
- No continuity of symptomatology5
- No evidence of cardiac hypertrophy or dilatation5
- No evidence of congestive heart failure5
- No chronic congestive heart failure5
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 coronary artery disease decisions
Granted
Diagnosed during service; Evidence in approximate balance; AOJ's assessment of asymptomatic bradycardia and non-disabling calcification was unclear
Veteran served in Republic of Vietnam during Vietnam Era; Presumptive exposure to herbicide agents under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e); Ischemic heart disease, including coronary artery disease, is presumptively associated with herbicide exposure
Veteran served in Vietnam, triggering herbicide exposure presumption.; Coronary artery disease is presumptively linked to herbicide exposure.; VA examination noted diagnosis and pacemaker; AOJ previously granted favorably.
Denied
No in-service complaints or treatment for cardiovascular conditions.; Normal separation examination findings.; No post-service treatment linking condition to service.; No medical opinion supporting diesel fume nexus.; Veteran missed scheduled VA examination without good cause.; Evidence weighed against service connection.
Workload of 3.1-5.0 METs with symptoms, not 3.0 METs or less; No acute congestive heart failure episodes in the past year; Claim filed more than three months post-surgery
Service treatment records silent for coronary artery disease.; Diagnosed post-service in February 2016.; VA examiner opined less likely than not caused by service.; VA examiner opined less likely than not related to service-connected hypertension.; Examiner attributed condition to risk factors (age, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking).; Veteran's hypertension was controlled with medication.; No evidence of aggravation by hypertension.; Veteran's lay statements not competent to determine medical causation.
Rules that apply to 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 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 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 (2018–2026) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.