Secondary service connection
Cervical spine limitation of motion secondary to a back condition: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2018 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided cervical spine limitation of motion claimed as secondary to a back condition in 1,499 decisions. It granted the issue in 8.9% of them, below the 13.6% grant rate for all cervical spine limitation of motion issues, denied it in 16.7%, and remanded it in 73.3%. Counting only decisions on the merits, 34.8% were granted.
Decisions
1,499
2018–2026
Granted
8.9%
All cervical spine limitation of motion: 13.6%
Granted on the merits
34.8%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
73.3%
Denied: 16.7%
See all cervical spine limitation of motion decisions, direct and secondary.
Cervical spine limitation of motion secondary to a back condition: outcomes by year
| Year | Decisions | Granted | Denied | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 130 | 3.8% | 21.5% | 71.5% |
| 2019 | 166 | 1.8% | 25.9% | 71.1% |
| 2020 | 194 | 9.3% | 16.0% | 73.7% |
| 2021 | 225 | 7.6% | 20.0% | 71.6% |
| 2022 | 206 | 5.8% | 9.7% | 84.5% |
| 2023 | 205 | 11.2% | 14.6% | 73.2% |
| 2024 | 171 | 14.0% | 16.4% | 68.4% |
| 2025 | 155 | 14.8% | 11.6% | 72.9% |
| 2026 | 47 | 19.1% | 17.0% | 63.8% |
Evidence in granted and denied cervical spine limitation of motion decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the cervical spine limitation of motion 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 record | Decisions | Granted when present | When absent | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive nexus opinion | 236 | 83.9% | 14.7% | +69.3 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 461 | 53.4% | 16.8% | +36.6 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 137 | 60.4% | 30.7% | +29.7 pts |
| Treating physician opinion | 62 | 56.0% | 33.3% | +22.7 pts |
| Combat service | 52 | 40.0% | 34.6% | +5.4 pts |
| Lay statement | 1,208 | 31.7% | 59.1% | −27.4 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 78.4% of the decisions that granted cervical spine limitation of motion.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 25.4% of grants and 8.0% 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 cervical spine limitation of motion was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.
| In the record | Decisions | Granted when present | When absent | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative nexus opinion | 1,041 | 30.9% | 52.9% | −22.0 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 1,243 | 32.3% | 54.5% | −22.3 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied cervical spine limitation of motion
Most common reasons in grants
- Caused by the service-connected disability29
- Current diagnosis established11
- Service connection established8
- Aggravated by the service-connected disability6
- Service records negative or silent3
- No contrary opinion of record2
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service2
- Service connection criteria met2
Most common reasons in denials
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis52
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service45
- Service records negative or silent23
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim22
- Aggravated by the service-connected disability13
- No current diagnosis10
- No continuity of symptomatology8
- Current diagnosis established7
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 cervical spine limitation of motion decisions
Granted
Current diagnosis of cervical strain and degenerative arthritis; In-service injury reported (forklift incident); Consistent statements regarding neck and back pain; Private opinion found condition more likely than not service-related; VA provider concluded cervicalgia secondary to intervertebral disc disorder; VA examination found pinched nerves, herniated discs, and cervicalgia due to service; Benefit of the doubt resolved in Veteran's favor
Evidence in relative equipoise; Benefit of the doubt applied; Private physician opinion found probative
Favorable private medical opinion linking cervical disability to lumbar disability; Inadequate VA medical opinion; Benefit of the doubt afforded to veteran
Denied
Favorable AOJ finding for diagnosis of cervical strain.; Negative nexus opinions from VA examiners (Feb 2023, Sep 2024).; Private opinion less persuasive due to lack of baseline severity analysis.
No chronicity of cervical spine symptoms during or after service.; Veteran's statements regarding in-service neck injury lacked credibility.; Medical opinions found no direct service connection or secondary causation from low back condition.
Lumbar spine disability not service-connected; No evidence of in-service onset or event; No nexus to service-connected psychiatric disability or scar
Rules that apply to secondary cervical spine limitation of motion claims
- 38 CFR 3.310
Secondary service connection and aggravation
Read it in VA Law Explorer - M21-1 V.ii.2.D
Secondary service connection and aggravation of non-service-connected disabilities
Read it in VA Law Explorer - 38 CFR 3.102
Reasonable doubt (benefit of the doubt)
Read it in VA Law Explorer
Research your cervical spine limitation of motion case
Narrow by year, judge, evidence or secondary condition, read the decisions, and export a research memo.
How these numbers are calculated
- Counts decisions in which the Board decided a cervical spine limitation of motion issue claimed as secondary to a back condition, by the outcome of that issue.
- The primary disability is read from the decision text ("secondary to …") and grouped by name, so spellings such as "PTSD" and "posttraumatic stress disorder" count together.
- Secondary claims also include aggravation of a non-service-connected condition by a service-connected one (38 CFR 3.310(b)).
- The data comes from CaseScribe's AI extraction of public BVA decisions (2018–2026) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.