How the Board ruled on elbow claims, 2021–2025

Elbow (direct service connection)

Direct (began in or was caused by service), or theory not stated in the Board order

30% granted of 1,023 decided cases (margin of error 27.3–32.9%). 307 granted, 716 denied, 1,564 sent back to VA (remanded, not decided), 190 dismissed.

What convinced the Board in granted cases

• Negative VA opinions lost weight when they ignored the veteran's credible account, relied on silent service records, gave no explanation, or missed key facts such as limited motion after surgery. (5 of 11 decisions read; e.g. 24030816, A24025134, 23046844)
• Credible reports of an in-service elbow injury and continuous symptoms, backed by service or treatment records or a nurse's statement, supported most grants. (8 of 11 decisions read; e.g. 24021618, A24019225, 24015011)
• A VA examiner's own favorable opinion, such as linking elbow problems to repetitive mechanic work in service, also supported grants. (2 of 11 decisions read, few decisions; e.g. A25008040, 24021618)

Common reasons in denied cases

• No competent medical opinion supported a link; the veteran's own view was not competent, or a VA opinion that reviewed the file and his contentions went unrebutted. (7 of 14 decisions read; e.g. 21055530, 21050549, A21002387)
• There was no current elbow diagnosis separate from conditions already service-connected. (4 of 14 decisions read; e.g. 21050549, 21016350, A21001748)
• Another cause or a gap was found more likely: no elbow problem in service records, years before symptoms, a post-service fall or accident, or age-related wear. (6 of 14 decisions read; e.g. A25023307, 24025645, A25012142)

See the full answer, year by year →

Elbow secondary to any service-connected condition

Secondary (caused or worsened by a service-connected condition)

15.4% granted of 39 decided cases (margin of error 7.2–29.7%). 6 granted, 33 denied, 134 sent back to VA (remanded, not decided), 8 dismissed.

What convinced the Board in granted cases

• The Board granted when a medical opinion explained how the service-connected condition affected the elbow, such as gout spreading or overloading the opposite arm, with an accurate history or literature. (4 of 7 decisions read; e.g. A25036166, A25027537, A25022462)
• Negative VA opinions lost weight when they did not address the secondary theory, ignored relevant treatment, or relied on a lack of in-service records. (3 of 7 decisions read; e.g. A25027537, A21007092, 24008723)
• Credible veteran accounts, such as elbow scars from surgery for a service-connected condition, supported grants. (2 of 7 decisions read, few decisions; e.g. A21007092, A24042266)

Common reasons in denied cases

• The Board denied when a thorough VA opinion, based on the record and sometimes literature, found no link and no contrary medical opinion existed. (6 of 14 decisions read; e.g. 21035421, A25001903, 21043911)
• The only support was the veteran's own belief, such as favoring the arm, which was not competent evidence of medical cause. (6 of 14 decisions read; e.g. 23058434, 21043911, 21032347)
• Other denials pointed to another cause, such as overuse, or to elbow problems first appearing many years after service. (4 of 14 decisions read; e.g. 21035421, 21032347, 22015320)

See the full answer, year by year →

Elbow secondary to shoulder

Secondary (caused or worsened by a service-connected condition)

Small sample: 11 decided cases, too few for a reliable percentage. 3 granted, 8 denied, 15 sent back to VA (remanded, not decided), 0 dismissed.

See the full answer, year by year →