BVA decisions by condition

Metatarsalgia: BVA grant rates and what wins

From 2018 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a metatarsalgia issue in 518 decisions. It granted the metatarsalgia issue in 24.7% of them, above the 19.9% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 29.3%, and remanded it in 44.4%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 45.7% were granted.

Decisions

518

2018–2026

Granted

24.7%

All conditions: 19.9%

Granted on the merits

45.7%

Granted ÷ (granted + denied)

Remanded

44.4%

Denied: 29.3%

Metatarsalgia outcomes by year

YearDecisionsGrantedDeniedRemanded
2019
66
19.7%31.8%48.5%
2020
74
14.9%39.2%45.9%
2022
69
33.3%24.6%42.0%
2023
51
23.5%21.6%54.9%
2024
62
37.1%24.2%37.1%
2025
75
32.0%30.7%36.0%

Evidence in granted and denied metatarsalgia decisions

For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the metatarsalgia 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 opinion9280.0%33.2%+46.8 pts
Favorable VA exam8273.5%36.8%+36.7 pts
Claimed as secondary7073.5%41.9%+31.7 pts
Lay statement40648.2%35.2%+13.0 pts
Private medical opinion14652.1%42.4%+9.7 pts
  • The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 76.6% of the decisions that granted metatarsalgia.
  • The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 43.0% of grants and 11.2% 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 metatarsalgia was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.

In the recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Negative nexus opinion26250.0%40.8%+9.2 pts
Unfavorable VA exam39045.7%45.7%+0.1 pts

Why the Board granted or denied metatarsalgia

Most common reasons in grants

  1. Current diagnosis established18
  2. Caused by the service-connected disability7
  3. Positive nexus opinion from VA examiner3
  4. Criteria for 10 percent rating met3
  5. Evidence evenly balanced3
  6. Rated under DC 52792
  7. Continuity of symptomatology since service2
  8. 10 percent rating granted under DC 52792

Most common reasons in denials

  1. Already at the maximum schedular rating46
  2. No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis8
  3. Preponderance of the evidence against the claim8
  4. Service records negative or silent8
  5. VA examiner: less likely than not related to service7
  6. Current diagnosis established6
  7. Criteria for higher rating not met5
  8. Criteria for increased rating not met5

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 metatarsalgia decisions

Granted

Citation Nr. A26040955Michael J. Skaltsounis · 2026

At least as likely as not related to service; Metatarsalgia is a recognized medical condition

Citation Nr. A26037229Delyvonne M. Whitehead · 2026

In-service physical training; Credited lay statements regarding trauma; Benefit of the doubt afforded

Citation Nr. A26036100Timothy Cothrel · 2026

Evidence is at least evenly balanced; Resolving doubt in veteran's favor; Injury incurred during ADT

Denied

Citation Nr. A26040039Danette Mincey · 2026

Negative report on separation examination; Lack of in-service complaints or injury; Veteran's lay evidence conflicted with contemporaneous denial

Citation Nr. A26036089Cory M. Picton · 2026

10% is maximum rating under DC 5279; Rating by analogy not appropriate for specifically listed condition; Pyramiding avoided by compensating foot pain under DC 5284

Citation Nr. A26018637B.T. Knope · 2026

Service treatment records silent for foot disability; No current diagnosis of metatarsalgia; No evidence of functional impairment from reported pain

Rules that apply to metatarsalgia claims

Research your metatarsalgia 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 metatarsalgia 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.