BVA decisions by condition

Malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma): BVA grant rates and what wins

From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma) issue in 5,833 decisions. It granted the malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma) issue in 19.2% of them, close to the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 28.5%, and remanded it in 51.3%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 40.3% were granted.

Decisions

5,833

2017–2026

Granted

19.2%

All conditions: 19.4%

Granted on the merits

40.3%

Granted ÷ (granted + denied)

Remanded

51.3%

Denied: 28.5%

Malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma) outcomes by year

YearDecisionsGrantedDeniedRemanded
2017
317
12.3%37.9%47.6%
2018
514
14.2%35.8%47.7%
2019
689
14.2%32.4%51.8%
2020
673
15.6%33.3%50.1%
2021
669
16.6%28.3%55.0%
2022
749
18.4%25.0%56.2%
2023
697
18.5%24.2%56.2%
2024
602
27.7%21.6%49.8%
2025
670
25.4%26.7%47.2%
2026
253
36.0%23.3%41.5%

Evidence in granted and denied malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma) decisions

For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma) 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 opinion1,10083.4%21.4%+61.9 pts
Favorable VA exam64474.6%33.0%+41.6 pts
Treating physician opinion38973.7%36.5%+37.2 pts
Private medical opinion2,31054.2%26.3%+28.0 pts
Buddy statement14954.3%39.8%+14.5 pts
Combat service48844.3%39.8%+4.5 pts
Claimed as secondary96925.0%42.3%−17.3 pts
Lay statement4,32234.7%61.2%−26.5 pts
  • The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 76.4% of the decisions that granted malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma).
  • The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 36.3% of grants and 10.7% 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 malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma) was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.

In the recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Negative nexus opinion2,93835.3%47.3%−11.9 pts
Unfavorable VA exam3,73535.5%52.2%−16.6 pts

Why the Board granted or denied malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma)

Most common reasons in grants

  1. Current diagnosis established235
  2. Service records negative or silent15
  3. VA examiner: less likely than not related to service15
  4. Presumed herbicide exposure in vietnam11
  5. Conflicting medical opinions on nexus9
  6. Caused by the service-connected disability9
  7. Presumption of herbicide exposure due to vietnam service8
  8. Criteria for service connection met8

Most common reasons in denials

  1. VA examiner: less likely than not related to service250
  2. No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis219
  3. Preponderance of the evidence against the claim192
  4. Service records negative or silent180
  5. No current diagnosis137
  6. Current diagnosis established65
  7. No continuity of symptomatology41
  8. Continuity of symptomatology since service23

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 malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma) decisions

Granted

Citation Nr. A26040241Marcus N. Fulton · 2026

Favorable private medical opinion linking cancer to psoriasis and treatments; Inadequate VA examiner opinion that did not address nexus to treatment; Medical literature supports increased risk of skin cancer from psoriasis and treatments

Citation Nr. A26039757Dustin L. Ware · 2026

Competent, credible, and probative evidence establishes the Veteran's melanoma/SCC was caused by service activities.; Dr. W.F.'s private opinion was given high probative weight due to thorough review, analysis, and clear rationale.; Negative VA opinion from July 2025 was discounted due to apparent bias in seeking a negative outcome after prior positive opinions.

Citation Nr. A26038815C. Crawford · 2026

Private medical opinion found melanoma at least as likely as not related to Agent Orange exposure.; Opinion cited scientific literature and explained biological mechanisms.; Veteran has current diagnosis of melanoma and presumed Agent Orange exposure.

Denied

Citation Nr. A26039301D. Johnson · 2026

No current diagnosis of skin cancer; Service treatment records negative for skin cancer; Post-service records negative for skin cancer; Layperson not competent to diagnose; Benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine not applicable

Citation Nr. A26037307Eric S. Leboff · 2026

Negative VA C&P examiner opinion; Evidence weighs against service connection; Primary cause is UV exposure

Citation Nr. A26035812M. Hyland · 2026

No probative evidence of nexus to service, including herbicide exposure.; Oncologist's opinion lacked specific rationale linking melanoma to herbicide exposure.; Melanoma is not a presumptive condition for herbicide exposure.

Rules that apply to malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma) claims

Research your malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma) 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 malignant skin neoplasms (other than malignant melanoma) 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.