Secondary service connection
Erectile dysfunction secondary to a back condition: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2018 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided erectile dysfunction claimed as secondary to a back condition in 618 decisions. It granted the issue in 28.3% of them, above the 17.5% grant rate for all erectile dysfunction issues, denied it in 18.6%, and remanded it in 52.3%. Counting only decisions on the merits, 60.3% were granted.
Decisions
618
2018–2026
Granted
28.3%
All erectile dysfunction: 17.5%
Granted on the merits
60.3%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
52.3%
Denied: 18.6%
See all erectile dysfunction decisions, direct and secondary.
Erectile dysfunction secondary to a back condition: outcomes by year
| Year | Decisions | Granted | Denied | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 64 | 23.4% | 23.4% | 50.0% |
| 2019 | 64 | 25.0% | 25.0% | 46.9% |
| 2020 | 76 | 21.1% | 21.1% | 57.9% |
| 2021 | 59 | 16.9% | 28.8% | 52.5% |
| 2022 | 67 | 29.9% | 14.9% | 55.2% |
| 2023 | 66 | 25.8% | 15.2% | 59.1% |
| 2024 | 96 | 36.5% | 14.6% | 49.0% |
| 2025 | 94 | 36.2% | 12.8% | 51.1% |
| 2026 | 32 | 37.5% | 15.6% | 46.9% |
Evidence in granted and denied erectile dysfunction decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the erectile dysfunction 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 | 149 | 86.7% | 41.8% | +44.9 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 78 | 75.0% | 56.5% | +18.5 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 232 | 69.1% | 51.1% | +18.1 pts |
| Lay statement | 459 | 56.8% | 73.0% | −16.2 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 78.3% of the decisions that granted erectile dysfunction.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 17.7% of grants and 9.6% 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 erectile dysfunction 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 | 397 | 54.0% | 74.4% | −20.4 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 499 | 56.4% | 79.6% | −23.2 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied erectile dysfunction
Most common reasons in grants
- Caused by the service-connected disability41
- Current diagnosis established27
- Service connection established16
- Criteria for service connection met6
- Criteria for secondary service connection met4
- No contrary opinion of record3
- Secondary service connection granted2
- Service connection for back disability conceded2
Most common reasons in denials
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis15
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service14
- Service records negative or silent13
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim8
- Caused by the service-connected disability7
- No current diagnosis7
- Current diagnosis established3
- Aggravated by the service-connected disability3
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 erectile dysfunction decisions
Granted
Positive nexus opinion found probative despite factual inaccuracy.; Spine injury and degenerative changes linked to ED.; Benefit of the doubt applied due to equipoise.
Equipoise of evidence; Benefit of the doubt applied; Secondary to service-connected back disability
Veteran has current diagnosis of erectile dysfunction.; Private medical opinions found degenerative disc disease contributes to erectile dysfunction.; Opinions were probative and well-reasoned, connecting erectile dysfunction to service-connected back disorder.
Denied
Lay statements suggested medication-induced connection; Treatment records lacked notation of connection; VA examiner opined no causation/aggravation from service-connected conditions or medications
No indication of in-service event for ED; Thoracolumbar spine degenerative arthritis not service-connected during review period; No VA medical opinion required or provided for secondary nexus
Service treatment records negative for erectile dysfunction.; VA examiner opined less likely than not related to service.; VA examiner attributed condition to obesity and lifestyle.
Rules that apply to secondary erectile dysfunction 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 erectile dysfunction 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 erectile dysfunction 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.