Erectile dysfunction decisions — 2009

The Veteran's coronary artery disease was not incurred in service and is not related to herbicide exposure. The erectile dysfunction claim has been mischaracterized, as the Veteran testified that his claim should be for service connection based on a current disability (vascular impedance) rather than secondary to service-connected CABG.,Bilateral lower extremity pain, weakness, and numbness were not caused or aggravated by service-connected disability.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for further development, including obtaining medical records and a VA examination to determine if his service-connected disabilities render him unemployable.

The Board found that the Veteran's claimed stressors were not verified, and thus there is no diagnosis of PTSD based on independently verifiable in-service stressor evidence. As a result, service connection for PTSD was denied.

The Board found that the Veteran's medical condition was emergent at the time he sought private medical attention, and that VA treatment was not feasibly available to him. Therefore, the Veteran's claim for reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred on August 23, 2008, is granted.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. The Board has determined that a remand is necessary due to the need for clarification regarding the etiology of the Veteran's erectile dysfunction and another VA examination.

The Veteran's back disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and arthritis of the spine may not be presumed to have been so incurred. The Veteran's prostate cancer is not shown to be related to his military service.

The Veteran's claimed renal, peripheral neuropathy, diabetic retinopathy, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and erectile dysfunction were not incurred in or aggravated by active service. The claims are denied.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's prostate disorder, skin disorder, erectile dysfunction, and hepatitis C were not incurred in or aggravated by service, including due to Agent Orange exposure. The claims for these conditions have been denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for various conditions, including colon cancer and its secondary effects on other disorders. The Board has ordered additional development to obtain relevant medical records and provide an opinion regarding the relationship between these conditions and active service.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for a statement of the case (SOC) on an earlier effective date for his increased rating, and a Travel Board hearing.

The Veteran's claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities was granted effective from July 2, 2005. The effective date is earlier than August 19, 2005 as the evidence shows that his full-time employment ended prior to this date.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's erectile dysfunction, which he claims is due to his service-connected diabetes mellitus type II, does not meet the criteria for special monthly compensation (SMC) based on loss of use of a creative organ.

The Board found that the Veteran's current erectile dysfunction is not related to his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II.

The Veteran's appeal has been withdrawn, and his claims for service connection have not proceeded further.

The Veteran's claims for an earlier effective date and increased ratings were denied as the earliest date of claim was September 20, 2007. The Veteran's prostate cancer residuals are rated at 20 percent, and erectile dysfunction is not compensable.

The Veteran's initial compensable rating for erectile dysfunction is denied, and his increased rating claim for coronary artery disease is also denied as the evidence does not meet the criteria for a higher rating during the period beginning July 6, 2004 and ending March 15, 2005.

The Veteran's tinnitus is service-connected, and his PTSD warrants a 70% rating. The Veteran meets the criteria for TDIU based on his service-connected disabilities.

The Board has determined that service connection is not warranted for any of the appellant's claimed disabilities, as none are on the presumptive list associated with herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for diabetes mellitus with erectile dysfunction was denied as his condition did not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration, including obtaining outstanding VA treatment records and providing proper VCAA notice.