Veterans Law Judge
Judge Megan R. Thomas: BVA decisions and outcomes
From 2020 to 2025, Veterans Law Judge Megan R. Thomas signed 262 Board decisions covering 477 condition issues. The judge granted 20.3% of those issues, denied 27.9% and remanded 48.8%. For the same mix of conditions, the rest of the Board granted 21.0% and remanded 45.1%, so this judge's grant rate is close to the Board's and the remand rate is above it.
Decisions
262
2020–2025
Issues decided
477
One issue per condition per decision
Issues granted
20.3%
Board, same conditions: 21.0%
Issues remanded
48.8%
Board, same conditions: 45.1%
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 | 40 | 17.5% | 17.3% | 40.0% | 51.1% |
| Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) | 32 | 43.8% | 28.9% | 37.5% | 38.1% |
| Degenerative arthritis of the spine (spondylosis) | 28 | 28.6% | 20.7% | 46.4% | 46.1% |
| Hearing loss | 25 | 16.0% | 19.5% | 28.0% | 34.6% |
Judge Megan R. Thomas's decisions by year
| Year | Decisions | Granted | Denied | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 103 | 35.0% | 36.9% | 59.2% |
| 2022 | 138 | 29.7% | 38.4% | 53.6% |
Why the Board granted or denied issues in Judge Megan R. Thomas's decisions
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established7
- In-service noise exposure conceded5
- Caused by the service-connected disability2
Most common reasons in denials
- No current diagnosis9
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim6
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service6
- Service records negative or silent5
- Current diagnosis established3
- Lay testimony not competent for diagnosis2
- No gross impairment in thought processes or communication2
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis2
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 Megan R. Thomas decisions
Granted
Manifestations of right ring finger disability approximated loss of use of the right hand.; Resolution of all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor.; Maximum schedular rating for loss of use of dominant hand under DC 5125.
Evidence in relative equipoise; Benefit of the doubt resolved in Veteran's favor; Competent, credible lay statements of continuous pain; Inadequate VA opinion due to improper basis and failure to consider lay reports
Veteran has current diagnosis of lumbar spine spondylosis with DJD.; Service treatment records are negative for back issues.; Veteran credibly reported in-service onset of back pain.; Private medical opinion found condition at least as likely as not related to service.; VA opinion had deficiencies and minimal probative weight.; Evidence weighs persuasively in favor of service connection.
Denied
Veteran has current diagnosis of hypertension.; Service treatment records do not reflect hypertension diagnosis.; Blood pressure readings during service were transient elevations.; VA opinion found less likely than not related to service.; Private opinion regarding aggravation was given no probative weight.; Evidence weighs against the claim.
No current diagnosis of heart condition; Lay testimony not competent for diagnosis; Weight of evidence against current disability
Evidence did not support ankylosis or functional equivalent; Incapacitating episodes did not meet criteria for higher rating; Evidence weighed against claim, benefit of doubt did not apply
Research your Judge Megan R. Thomas 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 (2020–2025) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.