BVA decisions by condition
Diseases of conjunctiva keratitis and corneal opacities: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a diseases of conjunctiva keratitis and corneal opacities issue in 2,057 decisions. It granted the diseases of conjunctiva keratitis and corneal opacities issue in 13.5% of them, below the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 39.1%, and remanded it in 46.0%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 25.7% were granted.
Decisions
2,057
2017–2026
Granted
13.5%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
25.7%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
46.0%
Denied: 39.1%
Diseases of conjunctiva keratitis and corneal opacities outcomes by year
| Year | Decisions | Granted | Denied | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 57 | 10.5% | 40.4% | 43.9% |
| 2019 | 177 | 12.4% | 44.1% | 43.5% |
| 2020 | 245 | 4.9% | 42.9% | 49.0% |
| 2021 | 264 | 9.5% | 40.9% | 48.1% |
| 2022 | 285 | 15.1% | 36.5% | 47.7% |
| 2023 | 312 | 12.2% | 34.3% | 52.6% |
| 2024 | 290 | 11.0% | 36.6% | 50.7% |
| 2025 | 283 | 26.9% | 40.3% | 33.9% |
| 2026 | 108 | 18.5% | 44.4% | 35.2% |
Evidence in granted and denied diseases of conjunctiva keratitis and corneal opacities decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the diseases of conjunctiva keratitis and corneal 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 record | Decisions | Granted when present | When absent | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Favorable VA exam | 264 | 61.5% | 18.0% | +43.5 pts |
| Positive nexus opinion | 266 | 59.8% | 18.5% | +41.3 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 302 | 38.9% | 23.9% | +15.1 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 450 | 31.1% | 24.0% | +7.1 pts |
| Lay statement | 1,658 | 23.6% | 36.6% | −13.0 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 65.8% of the decisions that granted diseases of conjunctiva keratitis and corneal opacities.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 32.7% of grants and 10.3% 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 diseases of conjunctiva keratitis and corneal opacities 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 | 1,179 | 23.8% | 29.0% | −5.2 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 1,598 | 24.2% | 33.9% | −9.7 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied diseases of conjunctiva keratitis and corneal opacities
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established39
- Criteria for service connection met6
- Caused by the service-connected disability4
- Service connection established4
- Aggravated by the service-connected disability3
- Criteria for 20 percent rating met3
- New and material evidence received to reopen claim3
- Veteran's lay statements found credible and probative3
Most common reasons in denials
- No current diagnosis107
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim78
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service71
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis70
- Service records negative or silent62
- Current diagnosis established48
- Evidence persuasively weighs against service connection17
- Criteria for service connection not met15
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 diseases of conjunctiva keratitis and corneal opacities decisions
Granted
Reduction from 40% to 30% was proper due to improvement.; Rating was in effect for less than five years, making specific protections inapplicable.; Corrected vision of 20/40 in both eyes does not meet criteria for 10% rating based on visual acuity alone.; At least one incapacitating episode requiring treatment warrants a 10% rating.
Benefit of the doubt resolved in Veteran's favor; UV radiation identified as cause; VA examiner's statement found probative despite negative opinion
Current diagnosis of photophobia; June 2021 VA examiner opinion: at least as likely as not related to service; Veteran reported onset of photophobia after PRK surgery; No competent medical opinion to refute nexus or suggest alternative etiology
Denied
No diagnosis of jaundice during service or post-service.; Cataracts and dry eyes diagnosed nearly 40 years after service.; Examiner opined conditions were age-related and not linked to service.
No competent evidence linking conjunctivitis, dry eye syndrome, or optic nerve atrophy to service.; VA examiner opinions indicated no nexus to service or service-connected allergic rhinitis.; Conditions manifested after service and were not documented during service.
No in-service event or injury for reddened sclerae; VA examiner diagnosed other eye conditions, not reddened sclerae; Less likely than not related to hypertension; No studies link reddened sclerae to hypertension; No causal or aggravating link to hypertension found
Rules that apply to diseases of conjunctiva keratitis and corneal opacities 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 diseases of conjunctiva keratitis and corneal opacities 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 diseases of conjunctiva keratitis and corneal 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 (2017–2026) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.