Secondary service connection

Retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) secondary to diabetes: BVA grant rates and what wins

From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) claimed as secondary to diabetes in 416 decisions. It granted the issue in 37.0% of them, above the 20.1% grant rate for all retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) issues, denied it in 20.2%, and remanded it in 42.1%. Counting only decisions on the merits, 64.7% were granted.

Decisions

416

2017–2026

Granted

37.0%

All retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration): 20.1%

Granted on the merits

64.7%

Granted ÷ (granted + denied)

Remanded

42.1%

Denied: 20.2%

See all retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) decisions, direct and secondary.

Retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) secondary to diabetes: outcomes by year

YearDecisionsGrantedDeniedRemanded
2017
37
18.9%45.9%29.7%
2018
52
23.1%42.3%32.7%
2019
58
27.6%12.1%58.6%
2020
61
37.7%18.0%44.3%
2021
44
36.4%15.9%47.7%
2022
42
52.4%11.9%35.7%
2023
51
54.9%7.8%37.3%
2024
35
40.0%14.3%45.7%
2025
28
39.3%21.4%42.9%

Evidence in granted and denied retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) decisions

For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) 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 recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Positive nexus opinion8087.3%56.6%+30.7 pts
Favorable VA exam7083.3%59.2%+24.1 pts
Private medical opinion13675.8%57.3%+18.4 pts
Lay statement33162.1%77.5%−15.4 pts
  • The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 75.3% of the decisions that granted retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration).
  • The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 35.1% of grants and 8.3% 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 retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.

In the recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Unfavorable VA exam23358.8%72.5%−13.7 pts
Negative nexus opinion16752.0%73.6%−21.5 pts

Why the Board granted or denied retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration)

Most common reasons in grants

  1. Caused by the service-connected disability50
  2. Current diagnosis established24
  3. Service connection established16
  4. Criteria for secondary service connection met5
  5. Diabetic retinopathy is a known complication of diabetes3
  6. Diabetic retinopathy diagnosed3
  7. Secondary service connection granted3
  8. Criteria for service connection met3

Most common reasons in denials

  1. No current diagnosis11
  2. Service records negative or silent8
  3. No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis7
  4. Service connection for diabetes mellitus denied5
  5. VA examiner: less likely than not related to service5
  6. Preponderance of the evidence against the claim3
  7. Current diagnosis established3
  8. No evidence of in-service onset or aggravation2

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 retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) decisions

Granted

Citation Nr. 26005036Marjorie A. Auer · 2026

Diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy and cataracts post-service.; Recognized complications of diabetes mellitus.; Private medical opinion confirmed these conditions are approximately due to Type I diabetes.

Citation Nr. A26036320J. T. Hutcheson · 2026

Diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy in January 2014; January 2025 VA eye exam found retinopathy related to Type II diabetes mellitus

Citation Nr. 26003809Tanya Smith · 2026

Veteran diagnosed with proliferative diabetic retinopathy with macular edema in both eyes.; Diabetic retinopathy is most likely caused by diabetes.; Granted as caused by diabetes mellitus, type 2.; Benefit of the doubt resolved in Veteran's favor.

Denied

Citation Nr. A25087007G. E. Wilkerson · 2025

Diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy in both eyes; AOJ favorably found secondary connection to DM2; Underlying DM2 not service-connected; Secondary connection therefore not warranted

Citation Nr. A25086721L. Howell · 2025

No in-service incurrence of vision disorder; No nexus to service established; Secondary claim denied as DM not service-connected

Citation Nr. A25070573Danette Mincey · 2025

Hypermetropia/presbyopia are congenital and not ratable; No positive association between eye diseases and herbicide exposure; Evidence weighed against nexus to service or bright light exposure

Rules that apply to secondary retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) claims

Research your retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) case

Narrow by year, judge, evidence or secondary condition, read the decisions, and export a research memo.

Open VA Law Explorer

How these numbers are calculated

  • Counts decisions in which the Board decided a retinal dystrophy (including retinitis pigmentosa macular degeneration) issue claimed as secondary to diabetes, 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.