Bladder cancer Board decisions

The Board found no evidence of exposure to ionizing radiation during service and concluded that the Veteran's bladder cancer is not related to his military service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for skin cancer and bladder cancer. The claim for skin cancer was not reopened due to lack of new and material evidence, while the claim for bladder cancer was denied outright.

The Veteran's bladder cancer is related to the positive findings of leukocytes shown on urinalysis at separation in February 1992, and the Board granted service connection for bladder cancer.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bladder cancer was not incurred in or aggravated by service and is not related to any disease or injury incurred therein. As a result, the claim of service connection for bladder cancer has been denied.

The Veteran died of complications due to cirrhosis of the liver, which is not service-connected. The Board finds that his prostate and bladder cancer did not cause or contribute substantially to his death.

The Veteran's bladder cancer is not due to Agent Orange exposure or any other incident of service.

The Veteran's bladder cancer was not incurred or aggravated as a result of his active military service, and may not be presumed to have been so incurred.

The Veteran's service connection claim for residuals of bladder cancer, claimed as due to exposure to ionizing radiation, is granted. The Board finds the Veteran was a 'radiation-exposed veteran' and his current residuals of bladder cancer are presumptively related to his military service in Nagasaki, Japan.

The Board found that the Veteran's bladder cancer was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of any psychiatric disorder, including PTSD.,There is no evidence linking the Veteran's bladder cancer to service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for bladder cancer and metastasis to the liver is being remanded due to insufficient evidence regarding his exposure to harmful chemicals during military service. The VA will seek additional information from the Veteran, review available service records, and request a medical opinion on whether his current conditions are related to in-service exposure.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for bladder cancer is being remanded due to the need for a VA examination and further development of evidence regarding whether his bladder cancer is related to his prostate cancer, which was service-connected as a result of presumptive exposure to herbicides.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bladder cancer is a result of his service, including as due to exposure to herbicides in Vietnam. The claim for service connection is granted.

The Veteran's bladder cancer was not incurred in or aggravated by his active service. The Board finds that the preponderance of evidence is against the claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bladder cancer and kidney disorder did not begin during service or are otherwise related to service. The claims for these conditions have been denied.

The Board has denied the claim of service connection for cause of death due to radiation exposure and bladder cancer, finding that neither contributed substantially or materially to the Veteran's death.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's claims for service connection for bladder cancer, colon cancer, and skin cancer due to radiation exposure should be remanded for further development.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is not service-connected as it did not originate during his military service and there is no evidence linking the condition to herbicide exposure. The Board denied the claim for service connection.

The Veteran's initial claim for an initial compensable rating for bladder cancer prior to December 3, 2009 was denied. The Veteran also failed to meet the criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent on and after December 3, 2009.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to incomplete records and to consider all applicable laws and regulations.