BVA decisions by condition
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD): BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2018 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) issue in 16,542 decisions. It granted the gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) issue in 20.0% of them, close to the 19.9% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 24.8%, and remanded it in 53.3%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 44.7% were granted.
Decisions
16,542
2018–2026
Granted
20.0%
All conditions: 19.9%
Granted on the merits
44.7%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
53.3%
Denied: 24.8%
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) outcomes by year
| Year | Decisions | Granted | Denied | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 1,459 | 11.9% | 30.8% | 52.9% |
| 2019 | 1,694 | 13.3% | 28.5% | 55.0% |
| 2020 | 1,686 | 16.3% | 29.0% | 53.7% |
| 2021 | 1,678 | 15.8% | 27.8% | 55.0% |
| 2022 | 1,652 | 18.3% | 21.4% | 58.8% |
| 2023 | 1,880 | 20.7% | 20.5% | 56.6% |
| 2024 | 2,506 | 25.4% | 20.6% | 52.8% |
| 2025 | 2,943 | 25.8% | 22.8% | 50.4% |
| 2026 | 1,044 | 27.1% | 27.5% | 43.1% |
Evidence in granted and denied gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive nexus opinion | 3,001 | 75.4% | 33.7% | +41.7 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 4,629 | 65.3% | 37.7% | +27.7 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 2,090 | 65.5% | 40.1% | +25.4 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 5,012 | 59.3% | 35.9% | +23.4 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 710 | 61.1% | 43.7% | +17.4 pts |
| Buddy statement | 434 | 55.3% | 44.4% | +10.9 pts |
| Combat service | 955 | 51.6% | 44.2% | +7.4 pts |
| Lay statement | 13,036 | 43.0% | 52.9% | −9.9 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 70.2% of the decisions that granted gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 35.2% 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 gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) 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 | 9,097 | 44.0% | 45.6% | −1.5 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 12,632 | 43.8% | 48.4% | −4.6 pts |
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) claimed as a secondary condition
Decisions where gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) was claimed as secondary to another service-connected disability (38 CFR 3.310), by that disability.
Why the Board granted or denied gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established364
- Caused by the service-connected disability128
- Service connection established120
- Criteria for service connection met51
- Considerable impairment of health44
- Aggravated by the service-connected disability30
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service25
- Symptoms met criteria for 30% rating20
Most common reasons in denials
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim465
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis423
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service414
- Service records negative or silent325
- No current diagnosis280
- Current diagnosis established146
- Symptoms did not meet criteria for higher rating57
- Criteria for service connection not met48
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 gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) decisions
Granted
Approximate balance of evidence; Benefit of the doubt applied; Prohibitive private opinion
Harmonizes with the October 2022 VA examiner's description of prostrating attacks and functional impact.; Considers Veteran's lay statements detailing severe economic inadaptability, including needing to avoid screens, modify work, leave early, or call off work.; Resolves all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor.
Veteran's testimony describes recurrent epigastric distress, pyrosis, regurgitation, and dysphagia.; Symptoms do not meet criteria for 30% rating (e.g., substernal pain, material weight loss).; New criteria also do not support higher rating as dilatation is not required.
Denied
No assertion of in-service onset; Inconsistent reporting of GERD onset; VA examiner opinion found less likelihood of service connection; Opinion based on lack of evidence linking TERA to GERD; Veteran has extensive smoking history
No in-service complaints or treatment; Significant temporal gap post-service; No nexus opinion
No current diagnosis of GERD; VA examiner opined less likely related to service; No medical literature supports causal relationship
Rules that apply to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) 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 gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) 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 gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) 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.