Veterans Law Judge
Judge J. Ragheb: BVA decisions and outcomes
From 2017 to 2022, Veterans Law Judge J. Ragheb signed 202 Board decisions covering 532 condition issues. The judge granted 15.6% of those issues, denied 41.4% and remanded 40.8%. For the same mix of conditions, the rest of the Board granted 19.8% and remanded 46.4%, so this judge's grant rate is below the Board's and the remand rate is below it.
Decisions
202
2017–2022
Issues decided
532
One issue per condition per decision
Issues granted
15.6%
Board, same conditions: 19.8%
Issues remanded
40.8%
Board, same conditions: 46.4%
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 | 43 | 4.7% | 17.3% | 44.2% | 51.1% |
| Hearing loss | 28 | 25.0% | 19.5% | 35.7% | 34.6% |
| Intervertebral disc syndrome | 21 | 19.0% | 18.7% | 42.9% | 48.0% |
| Hypertension | 20 | 10.0% | 17.2% | 50.0% | 48.7% |
Judge J. Ragheb's decisions by year
| Year | Decisions | Granted | Denied | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 56 | 39.3% | 60.7% | 66.1% |
| 2021 | 129 | 31.8% | 62.0% | 52.7% |
Why the Board granted or denied issues in Judge J. Ragheb's decisions
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established7
- New and material evidence received to reopen claim2
- Service connection established2
- Caused by the service-connected disability2
Most common reasons in denials
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim35
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service10
- No current diagnosis10
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis9
- Already at the maximum schedular rating5
- Flexion limitation did not meet criteria for higher rating2
- Service records negative or silent2
- Claim remains final1
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 J. Ragheb decisions
Granted
Veteran diagnosed with stage III chronic kidney disease.; Presumption of exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune applies.; Conflicting nexus opinions found to be in equipoise.; Benefit of the doubt resolved in veteran's favor.
Evidence in equipoise regarding higher rating; Benefit of doubt resolved in veteran's favor; November 2017 VA exam indicated 5-20% body/exposed area involvement
New and material evidence received to reopen claim.; Veteran served in Thailand near base perimeter, exposed to herbicides.; Ischemic heart disease is presumptively linked to herbicide exposure.; Benefit of the doubt resolved in appellant's favor due to equipoise.
Denied
Evidence persuasively against higher rating; VA examinations assessed mild incomplete paralysis; Did not meet criteria for moderate incomplete paralysis
Evidence persuasively against rating higher than 10 percent.; No additional functional loss beyond moderate limited motion.; Pain noted, but no loss of range of motion or instability.
VA examinations consistently showed range of motion measurements supporting no more than a 20 percent rating.; Private medical opinion and DBQ were found inconsistent with the overall medical evidence.; No evidence of ankylosis or IVDS sufficient for a higher rating was found.
Research your Judge J. Ragheb 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 (2017–2022) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.