Erectile dysfunction decisions — 2008

The veteran's conditions do not render him permanently bedridden or so helpless as to be in need of regular aid and attendance. He needs occasional assistance with activities of daily living, but is able to ambulate for distances greater than 100 feet with the use of a walker.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings and TDIU are being remanded due to the need for additional examinations, VCAA notice, and compliance with Dingess v. Nicholson.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine whether the veteran's quadriplegia and other disabilities are related to a December 2002 VA cervical spine tumor resection surgery, including issues of informed consent and negligence.

The Board has granted a higher initial rating of 60 percent for the veteran's Type II Diabetes Mellitus from March 27, 2001 to December 30, 2003. Since then, he is entitled to a 60 percent rating.

The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence received after the initial rating decision, and the RO is instructed to consider this evidence in its review of the claim for an increased (compensable) rating for erectile dysfunction.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an initial compensable evaluation for erectile dysfunction and restoration of a 100 percent evaluation for residuals of prostate cancer, finding that the evidence did not support these claims. The RO reduced the disability rating from 100% to 20%, effective January 1, 2004.

The Board has determined that the veteran's erectile dysfunction is related to his service-connected PTSD and the medication used for it, thus granting service connection.

The RO reduced the evaluation of the veteran's service-connected prostate cancer from 100 percent to 60 percent disabling effective October 1, 2005. The reduction was proper and restoration of a 100 percent evaluation is not warranted.

The Board has granted service connection for residuals of a vasectomy, finding that the veteran's current testicular pain and erectile dysfunction are related to his in-service vasectomy. The claim for a compensable rating for bilateral plantar fasciitis remains denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for depression, erectile dysfunction, and retinopathy as secondary to his diabetes mellitus. The effective date of service connection for diabetes mellitus was established as July 14, 1993. The claim for TDIU was also denied.

The veteran's claim for a separate compensable rating for erectile dysfunction secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus is denied as the condition is already covered under the special monthly compensation he receives.

The Board has determined that service connection is not warranted for any of the conditions listed, including low back disability, left ankle sprain, eye disorder (other than conjunctivitis), bilateral hearing loss disability, tinnitus, chronic lung disorder (PPD positive), gastrointestinal disorder (indigestion or gastritis), prostatitis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, bronchopneumonia, peptic ulcer disease, ischemic heart disease and hypertensive cardiovascular disease with angina, diabetes mellitus, acute pyelonephritis, liver condition, Bell's palsy with facial numbness, dengue hemorrhagic fever, and erectile dysfunction.

The Board has determined that the veteran's erectile dysfunction is not service connected and lacks legal merit due to a lack of evidence showing it was incurred during his military service or related to any service-connected conditions.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased evaluations for erectile dysfunction, nasal fracture residuals, multiple left rib fractures, and left zygoma fracture residuals as there was no evidence of symptoms warranting an increased rating at any time during the appeal period.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, erectile dysfunction secondary to diabetes mellitus, and hypertension secondary to diabetes mellitus due to lack of evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities, including Type II diabetes mellitus with erectile dysfunction and peripheral neuropathy of multiple extremities, prevent him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation.

The VA has determined that the veteran's service-connected erectile dysfunction does not warrant a compensable evaluation, as his penis is not deformed and he can still produce an erection but for a short period of time.

The veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including diabetes mellitus, type II and its secondary effects on peripheral neuropathy of the upper and lower extremities, erectile dysfunction, and an eye disorder, have been denied as there is no evidence of such conditions during service or that they are related to a service-connected disability.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to missing VA treatment records and for a urology examination.

The Board has granted service connection for hypertension and found that the veteran's hemorrhoids were not incurred in or aggravated by service. The case is being remanded to obtain VA examinations for erectile dysfunction, gastroesophageal reflux, and any psychiatric disorder.