Vertigo

There are 913 vertigo cases in my BVA dataset. The grant rate is 33.4%. Most veterans who file vertigo claims are filing them under one of two diagnostic codes: DC 6204 for peripheral vestibular disorders (244 cases) or DC 6205 for Meniere's syndrome (13 cases). The case distribution between those two codes (244 versus 13) looks routine until you look at the rating ladders.

DC 6204 tops out at 30%. The entire schedule is two tiers: 10% for occasional dizziness, 30% for dizziness with occasional staggering. There is no 60%, no 100%. DC 6205, the Meniere's code, has a different ladder: 30%, 60%, 100%, based on the frequency of attacks of vertigo, hearing impairment, and tinnitus.

That 30%-versus-100% gap is the structural cliff in this entire diagnostic area. The same veteran with the same vertigo can rate at 30% under DC 6204 or at 100% under DC 6205, depending on whether the file supports a Meniere's diagnosis or only a general peripheral vestibular disorder diagnosis. I want to walk through what 913 cases say about how the Board picks between those codes, why the tinnitus-to-vertigo secondary chain is the dominant claim pathway, where the TBI overlap fits, and what wins a vertigo claim once the diagnostic code question is settled.

TL;DR

• Vertigo grants at 33.4% across 913 BVA cases (305 granted, 359 denied, 249 remanded). The grant rate runs slightly above the 30.6% BVA overall average.
• DC 6204 (peripheral vestibular disorders) is the dominant code (244 cases) and its ladder caps at 30%. DC 6205 (Meniere's) appears in only 13 cases but offers a 30/60/100 ladder.
• Direct connection grants at 41.7% (436 cases) and secondary connection grants at 40.4% (297 cases), both well above the BVA overall average. Presumptive grants at only 20.0% (15 cases, small sample).
• The 30% rating is the modal tier: 141 of 232 cases with a clear rating tier. The 10% tier captures another 76. The 60% and 100% tiers combined are 15 cases, almost all under DC 6205.
• Strong-nexus cases grant at 90.3% (72 cases). Weak-nexus and missing-nexus cases both grant at 0.0%. Same cliff I see across most conditions.
• Lay statements quoted by the Board produce a 43.3% grant rate (439 cases) versus 25.0% when not quoted (460 cases). The 18-point gap is meaningful here.

913 Cases: The Balance Cluster

The first thing the 913 cases tell me is that vertigo claims sit slightly above the BVA average on the grant side. The outcome split:

• Granted: 305 cases (33.4%)
• Denied: 359 cases (39.3%)
• Remanded: 249 cases (27.3%)

The 33.4% grant rate is about 3 points above the 30.6% BVA overall average. The 39.3% denial rate is 2.7 points below the 42.0% average. The 27.3% remand rate lands exactly on the 27.3% average.

Vertigo cases land a bit better than the typical condition at the Board, which is interesting because the condition has structural problems: it's harder to objectively document than most physical conditions, it overlaps with multiple other diagnostic codes, and it depends heavily on clinical evaluation rather than imaging or lab tests. The reason it lands above average, I think, has to do with the dominant claim theory: most successful vertigo claims at the Board come through direct connection or through secondary connection to an already-service-connected condition (tinnitus, hearing loss, migraine, or TBI), and the medical literature on those connections is well-established enough that the nexus opinions tend to be defensible.

Looking at the denial reasons:

• Diagnosis missing: 85 cases
• Severity insufficient: 84 cases
• Nexus gap: 52 cases
• Other: 27 cases

The denial-reason distribution is more balanced than for fibromyalgia or TBI. Diagnosis missing and severity insufficient are roughly tied as the top reasons, and nexus gap sits behind both of them. That tells you something about the structural problems in vertigo cases: it's hard to confirm the diagnosis clinically, and even when it's confirmed, the severity threshold for the higher rating tier (occasional staggering, not just dizziness) is sometimes hard to establish.

DC 6204 vs DC 6205: The Rating Cliff

Here's where the framework gets interesting and where the dataset shows the most consequential structural feature.

The two diagnostic codes side-by-side

Under 38 CFR § 4.87, the rating schedule for ear diseases breaks vertigo and related vestibular conditions into separate diagnostic codes:

• DC 6204 (Peripheral Vestibular Disorders): 10% for occasional dizziness. 30% for dizziness with occasional staggering. That's the entire ladder. The note to the schedule states that objective findings supporting the diagnosis of vestibular disequilibrium are required for any rating, and that hearing impairment or suppuration shall be separately rated and combined.

• DC 6205 (Meniere's Syndrome): 30% for hearing impairment with vertigo less than once a month, with or without tinnitus. 60% for hearing impairment with attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait occurring from one to four times a month, with or without tinnitus. 100% for hearing impairment with attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait occurring more than once weekly, with or without tinnitus.

The DC 6204 ladder caps at 30%. The DC 6205 ladder goes to 100%. The clinical difference between the two codes is significant: Meniere's syndrome is a specific diagnosis requiring a triad of features: vertigo attacks, fluctuating hearing loss, and tinnitus or aural fullness, typically affecting one ear. Peripheral vestibular disorder is a broader category covering vestibular neuritis, labyrinthitis, benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, and various other inner-ear conditions.

Diagnostic-code and rating-tier distribution

In my dataset:

• DC 6204 cases: 244
• DC 6205 cases: 13
• DC 8045 (TBI residuals including vertigo): 14
• DC 8100 (migraine, with vertigo as associated symptom): 6

DC 6204 is the dominant code by an enormous margin. DC 6205 cases are rare: only 13 across the entire 913-case subset. That distribution reflects the clinical reality that Meniere's syndrome is a specific and relatively uncommon diagnosis requiring all three components of the diagnostic triad, while peripheral vestibular disorders are a broader and much more common category.

The rating-tier distribution in granted cases:

• 10%: 76 cases
• 30%: 141 cases (the modal tier)
• 60%: 5 cases
• 100%: 10 cases

Almost all of the 60% and 100% cases are running under DC 6205 (Meniere's) rather than DC 6204. The structural cliff between the two diagnostic codes shows up in the rating distribution: veterans with a Meniere's diagnosis can climb the 30/60/100 ladder, and veterans with a peripheral vestibular disorder diagnosis cap at 30%.

For a single veteran in 2026:

• 10%: $175.51 per month, $2,106 per year
• 30%: $537.42 per month, $6,449 per year
• 60%: $1,440.85 per month, $17,290 per year
• 100%: $4,044.91 per month, $48,539 per year

The jump from 30% to 100% is roughly $3,500 per month, or $42,000 per year, tax-free. That's the dollar value of the diagnostic-code question.

For veterans with vertigo, the clinical question of whether the picture meets Meniere's criteria is the highest-leverage variable in the entire claim. A veteran with fluctuating hearing loss, episodic vertigo attacks, and tinnitus affecting one ear has a clinical picture consistent with Meniere's. A veteran with episodic vertigo and no hearing loss has a clinical picture consistent with vestibular neuritis or BPPV: peripheral vestibular disorder, not Meniere's. The diagnostic workup that documents which picture applies is the workup that determines the rating ceiling.

The Tinnitus-to-Vertigo Secondary Chain

The connection-type breakdown for vertigo cases shows where most of the grant volume actually lives:

• Direct service connection: 436 cases, 41.7% grant rate
• Secondary service connection: 297 cases, 40.4% grant rate
• Presumptive service connection: 15 cases, 20.0% grant rate (small sample)
• Aggravation: small sample

Direct and secondary are running roughly equal in both case volume and grant rate. The presumptive lane is small and underperforms, which makes sense: vertigo isn't on any of the major presumptive lists. The PACT Act presumptive conditions don't include vertigo as a primary condition. The Agent Orange presumptive list doesn't include vertigo. The Gulf War presumption sometimes covers vertigo as an undiagnosed illness symptom, but the presumptive grant rate on those cases is low because the diagnosis problem reappears.

The interesting finding is that secondary connection runs almost as high as direct, with 297 cases granting at 40.4%. The secondary cases are concentrated in a specific pattern: vertigo flowing from an already-service-connected condition that affects the vestibular system or the central nervous system.

The most common secondary chains I see in the data:

• Tinnitus (service-connected) → vertigo
• Hearing loss (service-connected) → vertigo
• Migraine (service-connected) → vertigo
• TBI (service-connected) → vertigo as residual under DC 8045
• Cervical spine disorder (service-connected) → cervicogenic dizziness

The tinnitus-to-vertigo chain is medically well-established. Tinnitus and vertigo both originate in the inner ear in many patients, and the otologic literature documents the connection between persistent tinnitus and vestibular dysfunction. For veterans who already have service-connected tinnitus (which is by far the most-claimed condition in the VA system, with roughly three-quarters of service-connected veterans rated for it), a secondary claim for vertigo through the shared inner-ear pathology is medically defensible.

The same logic extends to hearing loss. Sensorineural hearing loss often accompanies vestibular dysfunction because the cochlea and the vestibular apparatus share neural pathways and blood supply. A veteran with service-connected sensorineural hearing loss who develops vertigo has a medically supportable secondary claim if the otologic workup shows vestibular involvement.

Migraine-associated vertigo (sometimes called vestibular migraine) is a recognized clinical entity in the neurology literature. The International Headache Society's diagnostic criteria for vestibular migraine require episodes of moderate or severe vestibular symptoms lasting 5 minutes to 72 hours, a current or past history of migraine, and at least 50% of episodes featuring migraine features. For veterans with service-connected migraine, a secondary vertigo claim through the vestibular migraine pathway is supportable when the clinical picture matches.

The TBI-to-vertigo chain is rated differently because the DC 8045 framework treats vertigo as a residual of TBI rather than as a separate condition. I covered the DC 8045 mechanics in the TBI cornerstone, but the short version is that the physical/neurological facet of DC 8045 can capture vestibular symptoms when they're TBI residuals, or the vertigo can be rated separately under DC 6204 if the pyramiding analysis supports separable ratings.

Why 30% Is the Modal Outcome

The 30% rating is the most common landing spot for granted vertigo cases: 141 of 232 cases with a clear rating tier. The reason is the structural shape of DC 6204.

Under DC 6204, the 10% tier covers "occasional dizziness." The 30% tier covers "dizziness with occasional staggering." The 30% tier is the maximum under DC 6204. The dividing line between 10% and 30% is the staggering element: whether the dizziness produces balance disturbance severe enough to cause occasional loss of balance or actual falls.

In clinical reality, many patients with chronic vertigo do experience occasional balance disturbance, and the documentation of staggering or near-falls is usually present in the chart. So the 30% tier is the natural landing spot for most chronic vertigo cases that get past the service-connection bar.

The 10% cases are usually cases where:

• The vertigo is mild and intermittent
• The episodes are brief (seconds to minutes) without significant balance disturbance
• There's no documented history of falls or near-falls
• The chart language describes "occasional dizziness" without staggering

The 30% cases are usually cases where:

• The vertigo episodes produce balance disturbance
• There's documented history of falls, near-falls, or staggering
• The chart language explicitly describes the staggering element
• The functional impact on daily activities is documented

The cases that climb higher than 30% are almost exclusively running under DC 6205 (Meniere's). The 60% tier under DC 6205 requires attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait one to four times per month. The 100% tier under DC 6205 requires attacks more than once weekly. Both higher tiers also require hearing impairment as part of the Meniere's triad, which means the file has to support not just severe vertigo but also fluctuating hearing loss and tinnitus or aural fullness.

For veterans whose clinical picture genuinely matches Meniere's, the rating climb from 30% to 60% or 100% is structurally available but requires documentation of frequency of attacks and presence of cerebellar gait disturbance during episodes. That documentation typically comes from neurology or otolaryngology evaluation with vestibular testing (electronystagmography, video head impulse testing, vestibular evoked myogenic potentials) and audiometry showing the characteristic low-frequency sensorineural hearing loss pattern.

The Diagnosis-Missing and Severity-Insufficient Walls

The two largest denial buckets, diagnosis missing (85 cases) and severity insufficient (84 cases), together account for about 47% of all vertigo denials. Both are clinical evaluation problems, not nexus problems.

The diagnosis-missing denials usually involve:

• Self-reported "dizziness" without clinical workup
• Symptoms that could be attributable to multiple causes (medication side effects, anxiety, dehydration, cardiac arrhythmia) without objective vestibular testing
• A working diagnosis of "vertigo" from primary care without specialist confirmation
• Absent vestibular function testing
• Absent audiometry where Meniere's is being considered

The severity-insufficient denials usually involve:

• A confirmed diagnosis but insufficient documentation of the staggering element
• Episodes described as "brief" or "mild" without functional impact documentation
• Chart language characterizing the symptoms as "intermittent" or "stable on treatment"
• Absent description of impact on daily activities, work, or driving

The two walls are connected. A clinical workup that produces a confirmed diagnosis of peripheral vestibular disorder or Meniere's syndrome usually also produces the symptom characterization that supports the higher rating tier. A workup that doesn't produce the formal diagnosis usually also doesn't produce the severity documentation, because both come from the same specialist evaluation.

The implication is that an otolaryngology or neurology consultation is high-yield for vertigo claims. The specialist evaluation:

• Confirms or excludes the diagnosis using objective vestibular testing
• Differentiates between DC 6204 (peripheral vestibular disorder) and DC 6205 (Meniere's) when the clinical picture is ambiguous
• Documents the frequency and severity of episodes
• Characterizes the functional impact in clinical language the rater can use

Without the specialist evaluation, the file is dependent on primary care documentation and the C&P examiner's evaluation, which is more variable. The 47.0% inadequate-C&P rate in this dataset (slightly below the 52% BVA average but still substantial) reflects how often the C&P exam alone isn't sufficient to support the rating analysis.

Strong Nexus, Lay Statements, and the Evidence That Wins

The nexus quality breakdown for vertigo cases follows the same structural pattern I see in most conditions:

• Strong nexus: 72 cases, 90.3% grant rate
• Adequate nexus: 283 cases, 78.4% grant rate
• Weak nexus: 204 cases, 0.0% grant rate
• Missing nexus: 123 cases, 0.0% grant rate
• Not applicable: 231 cases, 7.8% grant rate

The strong-versus-weak gap is 90 percentage points. The weak-nexus and missing-nexus categories grant at zero. The cliff is absolute, same as in fibromyalgia and kidney disease.

What separates strong from weak in vertigo cases:

• Strong nexus opinions are written by an otolaryngologist, neurologist, or otoneurologist with relevant expertise, walk through the specific vestibular pathology, identify the in-service event or exposure that triggered the condition (acoustic trauma, head injury, infection, ototoxic medication exposure), address competing causes and exclude them, cite the relevant medical literature on the connection between the in-service event and the current vestibular dysfunction, and arrive at an "at least as likely as not" or stronger conclusion with reasoning.
• Weak nexus opinions are written by a generalist provider without relevant expertise, state conclusions without showing pathophysiologic reasoning, fail to address the specific vestibular dysfunction, ignore competing causes, or rely on generic statements about service.

The lay-statement data is also worth pausing on. In vertigo cases, lay statements quoted by the Board produced a 43.3% grant rate (439 cases) versus 25.0% when not quoted (460 cases). The 18-point gap is real but not as dramatic as in some conditions (eczema has a 30-point lay-statement gap; sinusitis has a wider one too).

The lay statement is doing a specific job in vertigo cases. The Board is using it to characterize the frequency, severity, and functional impact of vertigo episodes, variables that are otherwise hard to document objectively. A specific lay statement that describes episode frequency, episode duration, episode triggers, and functional impact gives the rater material to work with that the clinical chart often doesn't capture in equivalent detail.

What makes lay statements work for vertigo:

• Specific dates of episodes
• Specific descriptions of what happened (falling, near-falling, gripping a wall, sitting down on the floor, vomiting)
• Specific impact (couldn't work that day, couldn't drive, missed a meeting, had to leave a function)
• Witness corroboration (spouse, coworker, friend who saw an episode)
• Frequency over time (weekly, monthly, daily during a flare)

The generic descriptions ("I have vertigo sometimes," "I get dizzy") don't produce the same effect. The specific descriptions do.

The TBI Connection Under DC 8045

For veterans whose vertigo is a residual of traumatic brain injury, the rating analysis runs through DC 8045 rather than DC 6204. The 2008 revision of DC 8045 created a three-facet rating system (cognitive, emotional/behavioral, and physical/neurological) where the highest-rated facet drives the overall rating at tiers of 0%, 10%, 40%, 70%, or 100%.

Vertigo and balance disturbance fall under the physical/neurological facet. The schedule's evaluation table for the physical facet considers various neurological symptoms and rates the facet on a 10-point scale that maps to the overall percentage tiers.

The pyramiding question (whether vertigo gets rated under DC 8045 as a TBI residual or separately under DC 6204) depends on the symptom attribution analysis in the case. The general approach the Board has been applying:

• If the physical facet rating under DC 8045 fully captures the vestibular impairment, no separate DC 6204 rating is assigned
• If the vestibular impairment is severe enough that a standalone DC 6204 rating would exceed what the DC 8045 physical facet captures, the vertigo can be separately rated under DC 6204 and the DC 8045 physical facet drops the vestibular component from its evaluation
• The two ratings then combine using the standard combined-rating math at 38 CFR § 4.25

This is the same pyramiding analysis I described in the TBI cornerstone, and it applies similarly to other TBI residuals like migraine (DC 8100) and PTSD (DC 9411). The strategic question for veterans with TBI plus separable vertigo is whether to push for separable ratings or accept the combined DC 8045 rating, and the answer depends on the symptom picture.

In my dataset, 14 vertigo cases are coded under DC 8045, small in absolute terms but indicating that the TBI residual pathway is in active use at the Board.

What I Can't Tell You From This Data

There are real limits on what 913 BVA cases can teach you about your specific claim.

I can't tell you whether your vertigo clinically meets Meniere's syndrome criteria or peripheral vestibular disorder criteria. The diagnostic distinction is significant for the rating ceiling, and it requires specialist evaluation (usually otolaryngology or otoneurology) with vestibular function testing and audiometry. The aggregate data can't resolve which diagnostic code applies to your specific clinical picture.

I can't tell you whether your specific tinnitus, hearing loss, migraine, or TBI is medically connected to your current vertigo. The secondary chain analysis requires a specialist opinion that walks through the pathophysiology in your specific case. The general medical literature supports the connections; whether they apply to your situation is a case-by-case determination.

I can't tell you whether your symptoms clear the staggering threshold for the 30% tier under DC 6204. That depends on what's in your treatment records and how the C&P examiner characterizes the severity. Some clinical pictures clearly clear the threshold; some clearly don't; many sit in the gray area where the rating analysis can go either way.

I can't tell you whether the TBI-residual pyramiding analysis will favor separable ratings or a combined DC 8045 rating in your case. That depends on the symptom attribution in your file, the C&P examiner's characterization of which symptoms are TBI-related versus separately compensable, and the specific judge handling the case.

I can't tell you why the lay-statement quoted/not-quoted gap is smaller for vertigo than for some other conditions. The 18-point gap is meaningful but not as dramatic as the 30-point gap I see in eczema or the higher gaps in some sensory conditions. The most likely explanation is that vertigo, while episodic and subjective, is also clinically evaluable through vestibular testing in a way that some other conditions aren't, so the lay statement is doing less marginal work.

What the data can tell you is the structural shape of these claims at the Board. The 30%-versus-100% diagnostic-code cliff is real. Direct and secondary connection both perform well. Strong nexus is near-ceiling and weak nexus is zero. The specialist evaluation is high-yield.

What it can't tell you is which side of those distributions your case will land on.

What Wins a Vertigo Claim

Pulling the patterns together, the vertigo claims that succeed at the Board usually have a few things in common.

A specialist diagnosis under the right diagnostic code. Otolaryngology or otoneurology evaluation with vestibular function testing and audiometry is the foundation. If the clinical picture supports Meniere's syndrome (the triad of vertigo, fluctuating hearing loss, and tinnitus or aural fullness), the case should be coded under DC 6205 and the rating ceiling becomes 100%. If the picture supports peripheral vestibular disorder without the Meniere's components, the case is under DC 6204 with a 30% ceiling. The diagnostic workup that distinguishes between the two is the workup that determines the rating ladder.

Documented in-service event or qualifying secondary condition. For direct connection, the file needs an in-service event that plausibly caused the vestibular dysfunction: acoustic trauma, head injury, infection, ototoxic medication exposure, or barotrauma. For secondary connection, the file needs an already-service-connected condition with a documented pathway to vertigo (tinnitus, hearing loss, migraine, TBI, cervical spine disorder). The 41.7% direct grant rate and 40.4% secondary grant rate reflect how often these foundations are supportable when the workup is done.

A strong nexus opinion that walks through the pathophysiology. The 90.3% grant rate on strong-nexus cases versus 0.0% on weak-nexus cases is the cliff that defines this claim. The opinion needs to identify the specific in-service event or secondary pathway, address the vestibular pathology, exclude competing causes, and arrive at an "at least as likely as not" conclusion with reasoning. Generic primary care notes don't move these cases. Specialist opinions do.

Documented severity supporting the higher rating tier. For 30% under DC 6204 or 60% and 100% under DC 6205, the chart language needs to support the specific criteria. Staggering and balance disturbance for 30% under DC 6204. Frequency of attacks (one to four per month for 60% under DC 6205, more than weekly for 100% under DC 6205). Cerebellar gait during attacks for the higher DC 6205 tiers. The specialist evaluation usually produces this language naturally; primary care documentation often doesn't.

Specific lay statements with corroboration. The 18-point lay-statement gap (43.3% grant rate when quoted versus 25.0% when not) reflects how much the Board uses lay statements to characterize episode frequency, severity, and functional impact. The strongest lay statements describe specific episodes with dates, what happened, who witnessed it, and what the impact was. Spousal statements and coworker statements that corroborate the veteran's account add weight.

Strategic handling of TBI overlap when applicable. For veterans with service-connected TBI, the question of whether vertigo gets separately rated under DC 6204 or absorbed into DC 8045's physical facet depends on the symptom attribution and the rating math. Separable ratings sometimes produce a higher combined total; the DC 8045 rating sometimes does. The analysis is case-specific and worth working through with the C&P examiner or in the brief to the Board.

None of this is a guarantee. The 33.4% overall grant rate is the same 33.4% regardless of how clean the file is. But the structural levers that move vertigo outcomes (diagnostic code selection, specialist evaluation, strong nexus, documented severity, specific lay statements) are knowable, and the cases that grant tend to have them.

Bottom Line

Vertigo is rated under 38 CFR § 4.87 with two primary diagnostic codes: DC 6204 (peripheral vestibular disorders), which has a 10%/30% ladder that caps at 30%, and DC 6205 (Meniere's syndrome), which has a 30%/60%/100% ladder requiring the diagnostic triad of vertigo, fluctuating hearing loss, and tinnitus or aural fullness. The Board grants vertigo at 33.4% across 913 cases, slightly above the 30.6% BVA overall average. The case distribution between diagnostic codes is heavily skewed toward DC 6204 (244 cases) versus DC 6205 (13 cases), reflecting the clinical rarity of true Meniere's syndrome. The 30% rating is the modal granted tier (141 cases out of 232 with a clear tier) and almost all of the 60% and 100% cases run under DC 6205. Direct connection (436 cases, 41.7% grant rate) and secondary connection (297 cases, 40.4% grant rate) both perform well, with secondary chains running primarily through service-connected tinnitus, hearing loss, migraine, or TBI. Strong-nexus cases grant at 90.3% and weak-nexus or missing-nexus cases grant at 0.0%, the same absolute cliff that defines most conditions in this analysis. The TBI residual pathway under DC 8045 captures a small but meaningful subset (14 cases), and the pyramiding analysis between DC 8045 and DC 6204 is worth working through when both could apply. The single most consequential variable in the entire framework is the diagnostic-code question: whether the clinical workup supports Meniere's syndrome (and the path to 60% or 100%) or only peripheral vestibular disorder (capped at 30%). For a single veteran in 2026, the difference between 30% and 100% is about $3,500 per month, tax-free, which makes the otolaryngology or otoneurology evaluation the highest-leverage investment a veteran can make in this claim.

Methodology and Limitations

• Data source: Statistics in this post are drawn from Claim Raven's analysis of 101,518 condition records drawn from 49,876 Board decisions, including 913 vertigo cases. Outcomes within the vertigo subset ran 33.4% granted, 39.3% denied, and 27.3% remanded. Rating criteria are paraphrased from 38 CFR § 4.87 (ear diseases). Secondary connection mechanics are from 38 CFR § 3.310. TBI rating framework is from 38 CFR § 4.124a DC 8045. 2026 VA disability compensation figures are for a single veteran with no dependents.
• Sample size: 913 vertigo cases overall. Within that subset, connection-type identification was possible in 748 cases: direct (436), secondary (297), presumptive (15, small sample), aggravation (small sample). Diagnostic code distribution: DC 6204 (244), DC 8045 with vertigo as TBI residual (14), DC 6205 (13), DC 8100 (6).
• Classification approach: Cases coded as vertigo based on condition extraction from BVA decisions. Nexus quality (strong, adequate, weak, missing, not applicable) is assigned by Claim Raven's analysis pipeline based on the language and substance of medical opinions in each case. Connection type reflects the theory of service connection the Board addressed, which may not always match the original claim theory at the regional office. Lay statement coding reflects whether the BVA decision explicitly quoted lay statements in the rating analysis.
• Limitations:
• The DC 6204 versus DC 6205 distinction is a clinical question that depends on specialist evaluation, vestibular function testing, and audiometry. The dataset reflects the diagnostic code the Board used in its decision, not necessarily the clinically optimal code for each case.
• The presumptive lane is small (15 cases) and underperforms (20.0% grant rate). The sample is too small to draw strong conclusions, but the structural reason for the underperformance is clear: vertigo isn't on the major presumptive lists, so the cases invoking presumption are usually arguing it as a Gulf War undiagnosed illness symptom, which has its own diagnostic problems.
• Rating tier distribution (10%, 30%, 60%, 100%) reflects the cases where the tier was specifically discussed in the BVA decision. Many BVA cases focus on service connection rather than rating tier, so the tier-distribution sample (232 cases) is smaller than the overall case count (913).
• The 90.3% strong-nexus grant rate reflects 72 cases, which is meaningful but not enormous. The 0.0% weak-nexus and missing-nexus grant rates reflect 204 and 123 cases respectively, which are more substantial samples.
• The 14 DC 8045 vertigo cases represent vertigo rated as a TBI residual rather than under DC 6204. The pyramiding analysis between the two codes is case-specific, and the dataset doesn't capture the universe of cases where vertigo could have been separately rated but was absorbed into DC 8045.
• The lay-statement quoted/not-quoted analysis is correlational. Boards sometimes quote lay statements when they intend to grant; the relationship between the quotation and the outcome isn't purely causal.
• Cases that made it to the BVA are not representative of all vertigo claims. Many vertigo claims are granted at the regional office or never appealed, and they don't appear in this dataset.
• These observations reflect patterns from BVA decisions. They are not predictions of individual outcomes.