Erectile dysfunction decisions — 2025

The Board remands the claims for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, erectile dysfunction, a right ankle condition, a back condition, and a right knee condition to allow the AOJ to correct duty to assist errors.

The Board granted service connection for an eating disorder and hypertension, but denied service connection for a skin disorder and erectile dysfunction.

The Board granted an effective date of May 10, 1989, for the grant of service connection for tinnitus and dismissed the claim for an earlier effective date for bilateral hearing loss. Other claims were denied.

The appeal for an earlier effective date and a compensable rating for erectile dysfunction with scrotal pain was denied.

The Board granted service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected prostate cancer. The other claims, including hypertension, colon cancer, and coronary artery disease, were remanded for further development.

The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction as the evidence did not support a finding that these conditions were related to the Veteran's period of active service.

The Board granted service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to hypertension and low back disability, awarded special monthly compensation based on loss of use of a creative organ, and denied service connection for various other conditions.

The Board denied service connection for erectile dysfunction, bilateral hearing loss, and sleep apnea. The effective dates for asthma, PTSD, and GERD were also denied.

The Board denied earlier effective dates for the awards of service connection for right upper extremity muscle weakness, right lower extremity muscle weakness, voiding dysfunction, and erectile dysfunction associated with multiple sclerosis.

The Board granted an initial rating of 70 percent for PTSD and remanded the claim for service connection for erectile dysfunction, to include as secondary to PTSD.

The Board denied service connection for left upper extremity radiculopathy with numbness in hand, erectile dysfunction (ED), urinary frequency, and a shoulder scar as there was no evidence of current disability.

The Board remands the matter for a fully adequate VA etiology opinion regarding the Veteran's erectile dysfunction, including its potential relation to service and toxic exposures.

The Board granted the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, but denied increased ratings for erectile dysfunction, left foot pes planus with degenerative arthritis of the mid foot, and supraventricular arrhythmia of atrial fibrillation.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection and initial rating for various disabilities, including a chest muscle strain, right arm disability, erectile dysfunction (ED), and right shoulder disability.

The Board denied service connection for erectile dysfunction and remanded the claim for heart conditions, to include congestive heart failure and cardiomyopathy with AICD.

The Board denied service connection for all claimed conditions as there was no evidence of a current disability or that any condition was related to the Veteran's active duty service.

The Board granted a 50 percent evaluation for PTSD with alcohol abuse from May 19, 2011 to June 17, 2012 and a 70 percent evaluation from July 21, 2015 to the present. The evaluations in excess of 50 percent were denied.

The Board granted an effective date of January 20, 2022, for the awards of service connection for erectile dysfunction and special monthly compensation based on loss of use of a creative organ.

The Board denied the claim for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1318, as the Veteran was not receiving or entitled to receive compensation for a service-connected disability rated totally disabling for a continuous period of at least 10 years immediately preceding death.

The appeal for service connection for erectile dysfunction was dismissed due to a concurrent election of review options under the Appeals Modernization Act.