BVA decisions by condition
Lumbosacral or cervical spine limitation of motion: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a lumbosacral or cervical spine limitation of motion issue in 851 decisions. It granted the lumbosacral or cervical spine limitation of motion issue in 9.8% of them, below the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 14.2%, and remanded it in 75.2%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 40.7% were granted.
Decisions
851
2017–2026
Granted
9.8%
All conditions: 19.4%
Granted on the merits
40.7%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
75.2%
Denied: 14.2%
Lumbosacral or cervical spine limitation of motion outcomes by year
| Year | Decisions | Granted | Denied | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 96 | 8.3% | 12.5% | 79.2% |
| 2020 | 115 | 8.7% | 13.9% | 77.4% |
| 2021 | 96 | 11.5% | 11.5% | 76.0% |
| 2022 | 84 | 10.7% | 10.7% | 78.6% |
| 2023 | 105 | 5.7% | 11.4% | 80.0% |
| 2024 | 111 | 9.9% | 19.8% | 70.3% |
| 2025 | 138 | 12.3% | 18.1% | 68.8% |
| 2026 | 55 | 12.7% | 12.7% | 72.7% |
Evidence in granted and denied lumbosacral or cervical spine limitation of motion decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the lumbosacral or cervical spine limitation of motion 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 | 100 | 78.4% | 28.1% | +50.3 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 47 | 76.5% | 37.4% | +39.0 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 88 | 65.6% | 36.0% | +29.6 pts |
| Claimed as secondary | 56 | 66.7% | 39.1% | +27.6 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 193 | 58.2% | 32.1% | +26.1 pts |
| Lay statement | 651 | 44.4% | 29.4% | +15.0 pts |
| Combat service | 57 | 53.8% | 39.8% | +14.1 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 79.5% of the decisions that granted lumbosacral or cervical spine limitation of motion.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 48.2% of grants and 11.6% 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 lumbosacral or cervical spine limitation of motion 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfavorable VA exam | 621 | 41.6% | 38.0% | +3.6 pts |
| Negative nexus opinion | 360 | 40.0% | 41.4% | −1.4 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied lumbosacral or cervical spine limitation of motion
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established12
- Criteria for service connection met3
- Evidence evenly balanced3
- Caused by the service-connected disability2
- Competent and credible lay statements2
- Evidence approximately balanced2
Most common reasons in denials
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim12
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service10
- No current diagnosis8
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis7
- Did not meet criteria for higher rating5
- Service records negative or silent5
- Failure to report for scheduled VA examination4
- Criteria for rating in excess of 10 percent not met4
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 lumbosacral or cervical spine limitation of motion decisions
Granted
Prior favorable finding of lumbar strain; Probative non-VA opinion linking lumbar strain to in-service injury; Benefit of the doubt resolved in Veteran's favor
Reduction based on single examination finding inadequate; No indication of material improvement; 20 percent rating restored
In-service motor vehicle accident in 2006; Post-service VA treatment for chronic low back pain; VA examination diagnosed lumbar strain; Private DBQ linked lumbar strain to in-service accident and duties; Evidence evenly balanced, benefit of doubt resolved in favor of veteran
Denied
Did not meet criteria for higher rating; Objective findings did not meet threshold for increased rating
Evidence weighs against service connection; No in-service onset or relation found; Service treatment records silent; post-service work injury noted
No current diagnosis of lower back strain found in the record.; Veteran's lay assertions lack probative weight for medical diagnosis.; Evidence persuasively weighs against service connection.
Rules that apply to lumbosacral or cervical spine limitation of motion 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 lumbosacral or cervical spine limitation of motion 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 lumbosacral or cervical spine limitation of motion 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.