BVA decisions by condition

Intervertebral disc syndrome: BVA grant rates and what wins

From 2018 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a intervertebral disc syndrome issue in 42,065 decisions. It granted the intervertebral disc syndrome issue in 19.6% of them, close to the 19.9% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 30.0%, and remanded it in 50.1%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 39.5% were granted.

Decisions

42,065

2018–2026

Granted

19.6%

All conditions: 19.9%

Granted on the merits

39.5%

Granted ÷ (granted + denied)

Remanded

50.1%

Denied: 30.0%

Intervertebral disc syndrome outcomes by year

YearDecisionsGrantedDeniedRemanded
2018
4,842
15.0%33.6%47.3%
2019
5,371
15.2%30.7%53.9%
2020
5,316
16.8%35.0%49.4%
2021
5,004
18.8%31.9%50.6%
2022
4,859
19.0%25.7%55.6%
2023
5,070
20.2%25.4%54.2%
2024
5,068
23.0%28.2%48.5%
2025
4,721
25.4%30.1%45.1%
2026
1,814
31.3%28.7%39.7%

Evidence in granted and denied intervertebral disc syndrome decisions

For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the intervertebral disc syndrome 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 opinion6,44673.8%30.1%+43.6 pts
Buddy statement1,71363.0%38.4%+24.6 pts
Favorable VA exam4,65057.2%36.0%+21.2 pts
Private medical opinion13,22052.3%31.6%+20.7 pts
Treating physician opinion2,21758.4%38.1%+20.2 pts
Combat service2,13556.2%38.6%+17.6 pts
Claimed as secondary4,34555.5%38.5%+17.1 pts
Lay statement35,98239.1%42.8%−3.7 pts
  • The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 71.6% of the decisions that granted intervertebral disc syndrome.
  • The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 43.3% of grants and 13.6% 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 intervertebral disc syndrome was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.

In the recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Negative nexus opinion20,01240.9%38.3%+2.6 pts
Unfavorable VA exam32,05538.1%47.1%−8.9 pts

Why the Board granted or denied intervertebral disc syndrome

Most common reasons in grants

  1. Current diagnosis established1,009
  2. Continuity of symptomatology since service264
  3. Resolved doubt in veteran's favor73
  4. Forward flexion limited to 30 degrees or less63
  5. Criteria for service connection met62
  6. Va examiner: less likely than not related to service59
  7. New and material evidence submitted54
  8. New and material evidence received to reopen claim43

Most common reasons in denials

  1. Preponderance of the evidence against the claim1,090
  2. Va examiner: less likely than not related to service1,006
  3. No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis869
  4. Service records negative or silent665
  5. Current diagnosis established541
  6. No current diagnosis333
  7. No continuity of symptomatology221
  8. Continuity of symptomatology since service180

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 intervertebral disc syndrome decisions

Granted

Citation Nr. A26040949M. Donohue · 2026

Current diagnosis of lumbosacral strain with degenerative arthritis; In-service injury from motor vehicle accident in October 1995; Probative private medical opinion finding condition at least as likely as not related to service; Inadequate VA nexus opinions due to inaccurate premise and lack of rationale; Evidence in approximate balance, affording benefit of the doubt

Citation Nr. 26005055C. Crawford · 2026

August 2025 VA examination found forward flexion limited to 10 degrees during flare-up, with pain.; Examiner explained "locking up" episodes do not constitute functional ankylosis.; No ankylosis or neurologic abnormalities found; no IVDS or incapacitating episodes.

Citation Nr. A26039967Ann K. Minami · 2026

New and relevant evidence (private medical opinion and treatment records) warranted readjudication.; Evidence persuasively favors conclusion that condition is at least as likely as not secondary to service-connected left tibia stress fracture with left shin splint.; Resolved all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran.

Denied

Citation Nr. A26040789L.M. Yasui · 2026

Veteran failed to attend scheduled VA examination without good cause.; No evidence of current back disability.; Most recent treatment for back strain was in December 2010.

Citation Nr. A26040822Harvey P. Roberts · 2026

No competent, credible, persuasive medical opinion establishing etiological relationship to service.; VA examiner opined condition less likely than not related to service.; Service medical records silent for back complaints; first VA mention 25 years post-service.

Citation Nr. A26040138D. Johnson · 2026

Service treatment records absent of back pain complaints or findings; Veteran denied recurrent back pain during service; No medical evidence or opinion linking current disability to service

Rules that apply to intervertebral disc syndrome claims

Research your intervertebral disc syndrome 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 intervertebral disc syndrome 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. Updated automatically as new decisions are added.
  • Research aid, not legal advice. Verify each decision and regulation before relying on it.