Veterans Law Judge
Judge Claire M. Davidoski: BVA decisions and outcomes
From 2021 to 2023, Veterans Law Judge Claire M. Davidoski signed 282 Board decisions covering 606 condition issues. The judge granted 20.0% of those issues, denied 31.5% and remanded 47.4%. For the same mix of conditions, the rest of the Board granted 20.1% and remanded 46.6%, so this judge's grant rate is close to the Board's and the remand rate is close to it.
Decisions
282
2021–2023
Issues decided
606
One issue per condition per decision
Issues granted
20.0%
Board, same conditions: 20.1%
Issues remanded
47.4%
Board, same conditions: 46.6%
Judges do not choose their cases, and grant rates differ a lot by condition. “Board, same conditions” is what the rest of the Board decided for the same mix of conditions, so the comparison is fair to the judge's docket. This is not a ranking.
Conditions this judge decided most
Each row compares the judge's issues on one condition with the rest of the Board's issues on the same condition. Conditions with fewer than 20 of this judge's issues are left out, because a few decisions can swing the rate.
| Condition | Issues | Granted | Board granted | Remanded | Board remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knee impairment | 37 | 21.6% | 17.3% | 54.1% | 51.1% |
| Hearing loss | 26 | 15.4% | 19.5% | 19.2% | 34.6% |
| Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) | 20 | 35.0% | 28.9% | 40.0% | 38.1% |
Why the Board granted or denied issues in Judge Claire M. Davidoski's decisions
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established5
- New and relevant evidence submitted for readjudication3
- Service connection established3
- In-service noise exposure conceded2
- Presumption of herbicide exposure applies2
- Continuity of symptomatology since service2
- Diabetes mellitus is a presumptive condition linked to herbicide exposure2
- Herbicide agent exposure conceded2
Most common reasons in denials
- No current diagnosis10
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis8
- Service records negative or silent7
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim6
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service5
- Evidence did not support ankylosis or functional equivalent2
- Current diagnosis established2
- No evidence of aggravation during service2
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 Judge Claire M. Davidoski decisions
Granted
Lay and medical evidence showed increased symptoms and functional impairment since August 26, 2010.; Evidence approximated criteria for 40% rating due to pain, functional loss, and radiculopathy.; Reasonable doubt resolved in veteran's favor for the 40% rating.
Reduction from 60% to 30% was improper; Insufficient evidence of sustained improvement; Condition continued to impact ability to work
Symptoms approximated moderately severe disability; Pain aggravated by ambulation and increased activity; Impacts ability to stand or walk for prolonged periods
Denied
No in-service complaints or treatment for hearing loss in STRs; First evidence of hearing loss 38 years post-service; Preponderance of evidence against service connection
No current diagnosis for headaches; STRs silent on headaches; VA examiner found no chronic headache diagnosis
Evidence did not support "loss of use"; Medical evidence did not support rating higher than 30 percent; Retained some function of left foot, ambulated with assistive device
Research your Judge Claire M. Davidoski case
Narrow by year, judge, evidence or secondary condition, read the decisions, and export a research memo.
How these numbers are calculated
- Issue rates count each condition the Board decided in a decision once, by the outcome of that issue. A decision can grant one issue and deny another.
- The yearly table counts decisions: a decision with a granted issue and a denied issue appears in both columns, so a row can add up to more than 100%.
- "Board, same conditions" weights the rest of the Board's grant and remand rate for each condition by how many of this judge's issues were on that condition. It does not adjust for evidence, hearing type or representation.
- Judges are identified from the signature on each decision. This page is a statistical summary, not an evaluation of any judge.
- The data comes from CaseScribe's AI extraction of public BVA decisions (2021–2023) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.