Diabetes: From Board Denial to Court Reversal

The two-step reality of a diabetes appeal: what the Board does with these issues, and — when veterans appeal a denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims — the arguments that get Board denials set aside.

What this is computed from: the 843 opinions and orders the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims chose to publish (1996–2026), taken from the Court's own site and read by rule — the disposition from each decision's holding sentence, the reasoning type and conditions from the decision text, and every quoted passage verbatim from the cited decision with the veteran's name removed. No model summaries. Of 1,201 published documents, 83 petitions, 144 attorney-fee (EAJA) decisions, 48 procedural orders, 2 unreadable files, 8 documents without a docket number are excluded and 73 could not be classified, leaving 843. Published decisions are not all decisions: the Court decides roughly 8–9,000 appeals a year, most by unpublished single-judge decision or on the parties' joint motion; the official disposition counts below come from the Court's annual report, never from this sample. Selection effect: only Board decisions a veteran chose to appeal reach the Court, so no figure here describes all Board denials. Data build: 2026-10-07 (method v2, September 2026 — replaces an earlier build that used machine summaries of a mixed-court search corpus).

Step 1 — Diabetes at the Board

From our issue-level parse of 1,929,585 public Board decisions (dated 1992-03-30 to 2026-07-31; archive years 1992–2025 complete; 2026 partial, added as the Board publishes; Board data build 2026-10-07):

Issues decided

70,143

Granted

17.5% (12,252)

Denied

36.6% (25,695)

Remanded

40.0% (28,067)

Open these issues in the Board decision finder (filter by judge, years, outcome or evidence; links to each decision on va.gov). Full Board-level tables: outcome rates by condition · judge statistics.

Step 2 — published Court decisions that mention diabetes

Published CAVC decisions mentioning diabetes

Board decision disturbed

60.5% (26)

What the Court said the Board got wrong — verbatim

CAVC No. 23-1692 · 2024 · published other · reasoning: unclassified

“So that is what we do here; we hold that the Board erred by failing to prove that another expressly raised theory of service connection would not support a grant of benefits before upholding the severance of service connection.”

CAVC No. 20-5580 · 2022 · published opinion · reasoning: reasons or bases

“We hold that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of its reasons or bases for its decision because it did not explain what it understood the phrase "near the perimeter[]" as used in the adopted M21-1 provision to mean.”

CAVC No. 16-1093 · 2018 · published opinion · reasoning: rating criteria

“The Board failed to explain how a 40% schedular rating adequately compensates the appellant's service-connected disability.”

CAVC No. 16-1561 · 2018 · published opinion · reasoning: inadequate exam

“The Court holds that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its reliance on the April 2014 examiner's opinion as to aggravation.”

Each passage is the Court's own sentence from the cited published decision, with the veteran's name removed; the reasoning label is a keyword tag for the decision as a whole. Read the full decision at the Court's opinions page or by docket number at CourtListener. A holding that fit one record does not guarantee it fits another.

Is your denial built on reasoning that fails on appeal?

Upload your decision letter — the free analyzer maps its reasoning against these patterns and computes your exact deadlines, including CAVC's 120 days.

Analyze my denial free →