BVA decisions by condition

Foot impairment: BVA grant rates and what wins

From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a foot impairment issue in 12,163 decisions. It granted the foot impairment issue in 11.0% of them, below the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 27.1%, and remanded it in 61.5%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 28.9% were granted.

Decisions

12,163

2017–2026

Granted

11.0%

All conditions: 19.4%

Granted on the merits

28.9%

Granted ÷ (granted + denied)

Remanded

61.5%

Denied: 27.1%

Foot impairment outcomes by year

YearDecisionsGrantedDeniedRemanded
2017
725
9.1%33.8%53.7%
2018
1,264
9.3%28.4%60.4%
2019
1,456
9.8%28.4%61.8%
2020
1,394
9.9%30.2%60.7%
2021
1,324
9.9%25.8%63.8%
2022
1,354
10.0%22.4%67.7%
2023
1,499
10.0%22.9%67.2%
2024
1,432
12.6%25.3%61.5%
2025
1,223
16.2%29.5%55.0%
2026
492
16.9%30.5%52.4%

Evidence in granted and denied foot impairment decisions

For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the foot impairment 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 opinion1,41059.8%22.1%+37.7 pts
Treating physician opinion49859.5%27.0%+32.4 pts
Favorable VA exam1,06253.7%24.7%+28.9 pts
Buddy statement41244.0%28.3%+15.7 pts
Private medical opinion2,97939.3%24.4%+15.0 pts
Combat service55634.2%28.6%+5.6 pts
Claimed as secondary2,09932.0%28.5%+3.5 pts
Lay statement10,05929.1%27.8%+1.3 pts
  • The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 70.1% of the decisions that granted foot impairment.
  • The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 44.1% of grants and 12.1% 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 foot impairment was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.

In the recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Unfavorable VA exam8,53327.7%33.1%−5.4 pts
Negative nexus opinion5,99225.8%32.7%−6.9 pts

Foot impairment claimed as a secondary condition

Decisions where foot impairment was claimed as secondary to another service-connected disability (38 CFR 3.310), by that disability.

Why the Board granted or denied foot impairment

Most common reasons in grants

  1. Current diagnosis established160
  2. Caused by the service-connected disability52
  3. Continuity of symptomatology since service29
  4. Service connection established27
  5. Criteria for service connection met23
  6. New and material evidence received9
  7. Evidence evenly balanced9
  8. New and material evidence submitted9

Most common reasons in denials

  1. No current diagnosis487
  2. Preponderance of the evidence against the claim364
  3. No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis320
  4. Service records negative or silent301
  5. VA examiner: less likely than not related to service267
  6. Current diagnosis established222
  7. No continuity of symptomatology66
  8. Criteria for service connection not met58

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 foot impairment decisions

Granted

Citation Nr. A26040618Jonathan Hager · 2026

Current disability established by credible testimony of pain causing impairment in earning capacity.; In-service injury established by veteran's credible testimony of pain during strenuous physical training in boot camp and combat school.; Nexus established by credible and consistent lay testimony regarding pain and impairment since service, with doubt resolved in veteran's favor.

Citation Nr. A26040845A. Ishizawar · 2026

Prognosis of bilateral foot disability supported by VA treatment records.; In-service injury documented by Veteran's testimony and lay statements.; Private medical opinion from Dr. C.H. provided adequate rationale linking current disability to in-service injury.

Citation Nr. 26005010Martin B. Peters · 2026

Veteran's lay statements regarding onset and persistence of pain during and after service found credible.; Benefit of the doubt applied due to inadequate VA medical opinions and credible lay evidence.; Direct service connection established based on continuity of symptomatology.

Denied

Citation Nr. A26041016Jennifer Hwa · 2026

No current diagnosis of right foot condition; No functional impairment of earning capacity demonstrated; No competent medical evidence of diagnosis or etiology

Citation Nr. A26040965A. Dean · 2026

No current diagnosis of foot disability; No evidence of functional impairment; No complaints or treatments in service records

Citation Nr. A26040327Cynthia M. Bruce · 2026

No probative evidence of in-service injury to the left leg; Contemporaneous service records negative for claimed injuries; Veteran's affirmative denials of symptoms contradicted current allegations

Rules that apply to foot impairment claims

Research your foot impairment 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 foot impairment 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.