BVA decisions by condition

Retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration): BVA grant rates and what wins

From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) issue in 1,520 decisions. It granted the retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) issue in 20.1% of them, close to the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 29.8%, and remanded it in 49.2%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 40.2% were granted.

Decisions

1,520

2017–2026

Granted

20.1%

All conditions: 19.4%

Granted on the merits

40.2%

Granted ÷ (granted + denied)

Remanded

49.2%

Denied: 29.8%

Retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) outcomes by year

YearDecisionsGrantedDeniedRemanded
2017
153
13.1%42.5%38.6%
2018
223
13.0%40.8%45.3%
2019
212
16.5%25.0%56.6%
2020
195
19.5%31.3%48.7%
2021
153
19.6%31.4%51.0%
2022
160
25.6%16.3%56.9%
2023
152
28.3%19.1%52.0%
2024
125
21.6%31.2%47.2%
2025
106
25.5%29.2%46.2%

Evidence in granted and denied retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) decisions

For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) 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 opinion25069.4%31.1%+38.3 pts
Claimed as secondary54162.4%25.9%+36.5 pts
Treating physician opinion7771.7%37.9%+33.8 pts
Favorable VA exam20963.8%34.3%+29.5 pts
Buddy statement4265.5%39.2%+26.3 pts
Private medical opinion47851.2%33.2%+18.0 pts
Combat service8645.5%39.9%+5.5 pts
Lay statement1,14337.4%53.4%−15.9 pts
  • The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 69.5% of the decisions that granted retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration).
  • The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 30.5% of grants and 15.5% 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 retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.

In the recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Negative nexus opinion70632.1%49.2%−17.1 pts
Unfavorable VA exam98034.1%55.6%−21.4 pts

Retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) claimed as a secondary condition

Decisions where retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) was claimed as secondary to another service-connected disability (38 CFR 3.310), by that disability.

Why the Board granted or denied retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration)

Most common reasons in grants

  1. Caused by the service-connected disability57
  2. Current diagnosis established47
  3. Service connection established26
  4. Criteria for secondary service connection met6
  5. Criteria for service connection met4
  6. Secondary service connection granted4
  7. Diabetic retinopathy is a known complication of diabetes3
  8. VA examiner: less likely than not related to service3

Most common reasons in denials

  1. Preponderance of the evidence against the claim41
  2. No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis32
  3. VA examiner: less likely than not related to service32
  4. No current diagnosis31
  5. Service records negative or silent25
  6. Current diagnosis established16
  7. No incapacitating episodes10
  8. Aggravated by the service-connected disability7

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 retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) decisions

Granted

Citation Nr. 26005036Marjorie A. Auer · 2026

Diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy and cataracts post-service.; Recognized complications of diabetes mellitus.; Private medical opinion confirmed these conditions are approximately due to Type I diabetes.

Citation Nr. A26038893C. Crawford · 2026

Multiple injections received between April 22, 2021, and September 21, 2021.; Symptoms began around April 22, 2021.; Symptoms resolved after injections by September 21, 2021.

Citation Nr. A26036320J. T. Hutcheson · 2026

Diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy in January 2014; January 2025 VA eye exam found retinopathy related to Type II diabetes mellitus

Denied

Citation Nr. A26038893C. Crawford · 2026

No visual field defects or decreased visual acuity.; Corrected vision generally 20/20 or better.; Symptoms prior to April 22, 2021, not clearly established.

Citation Nr. A26037258S.C. Krembs · 2026

No probative medical nexus opinion found; VA examiner found no direct or presumptive service connection; Evidence persuasively weighs against service connection

Citation Nr. A26032713Marcus N. Fulton · 2026

No incapacitating episodes requiring 3-5 visits; Visual acuity warrants noncompensable rating; Evidence against higher rating

Rules that apply to retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) claims

Research your retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) 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 retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) 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.