BVA decisions by condition

Skin conditions: BVA grant rates and what wins

From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a skin conditions issue in 516 decisions. It granted the skin conditions issue in 14.0% of them, below the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 30.4%, and remanded it in 54.3%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 31.4% were granted.

Decisions

516

2017–2026

Granted

14.0%

All conditions: 19.4%

Granted on the merits

31.4%

Granted ÷ (granted + denied)

Remanded

54.3%

Denied: 30.4%

Skin conditions outcomes by year

YearDecisionsGrantedDeniedRemanded
2017
50
10.0%24.0%56.0%
2018
68
17.6%26.5%48.5%
2019
52
9.6%28.8%61.5%
2021
60
18.3%40.0%45.0%
2023
68
10.3%32.4%58.8%
2024
54
20.4%29.6%50.0%
2025
53
20.8%39.6%37.7%

Evidence in granted and denied skin conditions decisions

For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the skin conditions 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
Favorable VA exam5166.7%23.5%+43.1 pts
Positive nexus opinion4465.7%25.3%+40.5 pts
Private medical opinion11036.1%29.8%+6.3 pts
Lay statement39829.5%44.8%−15.3 pts
Claimed as secondary5614.3%32.6%−18.3 pts
  • The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 68.1% of the decisions that granted skin conditions.
  • The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 40.3% of grants and 15.3% 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 skin conditions was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.

In the recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Negative nexus opinion23728.7%34.6%−5.9 pts
Unfavorable VA exam37529.6%42.4%−12.8 pts

Why the Board granted or denied skin conditions

Most common reasons in grants

  1. Current diagnosis established8
  2. Service connection established2
  3. Already at the maximum schedular rating2

Most common reasons in denials

  1. Preponderance of the evidence against the claim23
  2. VA examiner: less likely than not related to service17
  3. Service records negative or silent10
  4. No current diagnosis9
  5. Current diagnosis established7
  6. Already at the maximum schedular rating4
  7. Did not meet criteria for compensable rating4
  8. No treatment required3

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 skin conditions decisions

Granted

Citation Nr. A26031774L. Stepanick · 2026

Reduction of rating from 30% to 10% was improper.; July 2024 VA exam was internally inconsistent and not thorough.; Failure to demonstrate actual improvement in functioning.; Restoration of 30% rating granted.

Citation Nr. A26026627G. A. Wasik · 2026

Evidence tends to show characteristic lesions involving at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of the entire body affected or exposed areas.; Veteran's testimony indicates condition impacts beard area and anterior upper neck, supporting at least 5 percent affected.; Evidence does not show condition covers more than 20 percent or requires more than intermittent systemic therapy for a higher rating.

Citation Nr. A26007504S. Merrick · 2026

Symptoms meet criteria for 60% rating; Debilitating fatigue and cognitive impairments restrict daily activities to less than 50% of pre-illness level; 100% criteria not met as Veteran is not precluded from self-care and is still working

Denied

Citation Nr. A26040327Cynthia M. Bruce · 2026

Contemporaneous service treatment records negative for mumps; Veteran's affirmative denials of symptoms in service records; Lay testimony deemed non-credible against service records; Private medical opinion lacked probative value due to reliance on non-credible reports

Citation Nr. A26037105A. S. Caracciolo · 2026

Affected less than 5% of body/exposed area.; Received only topical treatment.; Did not meet criteria for compensable rating.

Citation Nr. A26036357Danette Mincey · 2026

Condition affected less than 5% of body/exposed areas; No treatment required; Symptoms did not warrant higher rating

Rules that apply to skin conditions claims

Research your skin conditions 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 skin conditions 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.