Secondary service connection
Paralysis of sciatic nerve secondary to a back condition: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided paralysis of sciatic nerve claimed as secondary to a back condition in 327 decisions. It granted the issue in 57.8% of them, above the 43.9% grant rate for all paralysis of sciatic nerve issues, denied it in 38.2%, and remanded it in 6.7%. Counting only decisions on the merits, 60.2% were granted.
Decisions
327
2017–2026
Granted
57.8%
All paralysis of sciatic nerve: 43.9%
Granted on the merits
60.2%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
6.7%
Denied: 38.2%
See all paralysis of sciatic nerve decisions, direct and secondary.
Paralysis of sciatic nerve secondary to a back condition: outcomes by year
| Year | Decisions | Granted | Denied | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 28 | 46.4% | 50.0% | 3.6% |
| 2018 | 22 | 54.5% | 50.0% | 4.5% |
| 2019 | 29 | 44.8% | 48.3% | 6.9% |
| 2020 | 49 | 61.2% | 32.7% | 8.2% |
| 2021 | 27 | 48.1% | 44.4% | 7.4% |
| 2022 | 29 | 69.0% | 34.5% | 6.9% |
| 2023 | 33 | 69.7% | 24.2% | 6.1% |
| 2024 | 49 | 49.0% | 51.0% | 6.1% |
| 2025 | 48 | 68.8% | 22.9% | 8.3% |
Evidence in granted and denied paralysis of sciatic nerve decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the paralysis of sciatic nerve 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Favorable VA exam | 76 | 75.7% | 55.7% | +20.0 pts |
| Positive nexus opinion | 48 | 73.3% | 58.0% | +15.3 pts |
| Lay statement | 287 | 61.2% | 53.7% | +7.5 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 129 | 60.5% | 60.0% | +0.5 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 61.9% of the decisions that granted paralysis of sciatic nerve.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 19.0% of grants and 12.8% 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 paralysis of sciatic nerve 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 | 79 | 62.2% | 59.6% | +2.6 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 282 | 58.5% | 71.4% | −13.0 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied paralysis of sciatic nerve
Most common reasons in grants
- Caused by the service-connected disability53
- Moderate incomplete paralysis of sciatic nerve9
- Service connection established8
- Current diagnosis established7
- Moderate incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve6
- Moderate incomplete paralysis4
- Associated with service-connected lumbar spine disability3
- Symptoms approximated moderate incomplete paralysis3
Most common reasons in denials
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim9
- No current diagnosis5
- Evidence weighed against moderately severe incomplete paralysis2
- Symptoms primarily sensory2
- Symptoms approximated moderate incomplete paralysis2
- Claimed as secondary to lumbar stenosis1
- Claimed as secondary to a non-service-connected low back condition1
- Beginning may 24, 2023, symptoms approximated moderately severe paralysis (40% rating) with moderate pain, paresthesias, numbness, and some weakness1
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 paralysis of sciatic nerve decisions
Granted
VA examination noted severe constant pain, severe paresthesias/dysesthesias, severe numbness.; Examiner described sciatic nerve involvement as moderately severe incomplete paralysis.; Impairment of motor function and decreased muscle strength indicated impairment.; Resolving doubt in veteran's favor, 40% rating warranted.
Supported by Veteran's credible lay statements; VA examiner noted left-sided radicular symptoms; Examiner's conclusion against diagnosis not adequately explained
Symptoms within scope of back disability claim; Analogous to mild incomplete paralysis of sciatic nerve; Awarded 10 percent rating
Denied
VA examination found normal motor strength, sensation, and reflexes.; No muscle atrophy or complete paralysis noted.; Moderate intermittent pain and mild paresthesias, but no constant pain.; Condition rated as mild incomplete paralysis, primarily sensory.
Reduction proper due to actual improvement; Later examinations showed no RLE symptoms; Rating in effect for less than five years
Evidence best approximates moderate incomplete paralysis, not moderately severe or severe.; VA examination found severe radiculopathy but also retained muscle strength and normal sensory exam.; Veteran's testimony of weakness and pain was credible but unpersuasive against objective findings.
Rules that apply to secondary paralysis of sciatic nerve 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 paralysis of sciatic nerve 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 paralysis of sciatic nerve 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 (2017–2026) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.