Erectile dysfunction Board decisions

The Board has determined that the Veteran's erectile dysfunction is not related to his service or a service-connected disability, and therefore denied the claim for service connection.

The Board found that erectile dysfunction was not incurred in service and is not caused by or aggravated by service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional medical opinions regarding his claims of service connection for erectile dysfunction and peripheral neuropathy. The case will be returned to the AOJ for further development.

The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable evaluation for erectile dysfunction has been denied as there is no evidence of penis deformity to warrant a compensable rating.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for erectile dysfunction and neuropathy of the upper extremities are being remanded due to insufficient medical opinions and potential new evidence.

The Veteran's currently diagnosed polypoidal choroidal vasculopathy of the eyes with pigment epithelial detachment is etiologically related to service, including conceded herbicide exposure. Service connection for this condition is granted.

The Veteran's appeal has been withdrawn by the appellant in a statement received in October 2014.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes, erectile dysfunction (ED), peripheral neuropathy of the lower and upper extremities were denied as there was no evidence of these conditions in service or within a year of service. The Board also found that the Veteran did not meet the criteria to be presumed exposed to Agent Orange during his service in Korea.

The Veteran's erectile dysfunction did not manifest during or as a result of active military service, nor was it caused by or aggravated beyond the natural progression as a result of his service-connected diabetes mellitus. As such, the claim for service connection is denied.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's erectile dysfunction and cerebrovascular accident are not service-connected, as they are less likely than not caused by or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims due to a failure to provide a hearing, and the case is now pending for further action.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's erectile dysfunction is related to his military service or caused by any service-connected disability. The claim will be re-adjudicated after this development.

The Board found no evidence of prostate cancer during active duty service and denied the Veteran's claims for service connection. The Veteran was not exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides while serving on ships in Da Nang Harbor.

The Veteran's service connection claims for erectile dysfunction, irritable bowel syndrome, and GERD have been denied. The Veteran was granted a 30% rating for his sleep disorder secondary to his service-connected generalized anxiety disorder with depressive disorder.

The Board has dismissed the issue of whether the reduction for prostate cancer, status post radical prostatectomy with implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), to 60 percent disabling was proper. The Veteran's erectile dysfunction is not productive of a compensable disability rating.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. The case is being remanded to obtain additional medical records and provide a comprehensive opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's claimed conditions.

The Veteran's claims for earlier effective dates for the ratings of his service-connected Hodgkin's disease and prostate cancer were denied as there was no evidence showing an increase in severity prior to March 23, 2011.,VA received the Veteran's increased rating claims on March 23, 2011. The RO assigned the effective dates based on when VA first received the claims for increased ratings.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and providing a new VA examination for PTSD. The issues of entitlement to higher ratings for PTSD and service connection for erectile dysfunction are also being addressed.

The Veteran's claim for a certificate of eligibility for financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile and adaptive equipment, or adaptive equipment is granted due to his service-connected disabilities resulting from a stroke.

The Veteran withdrew his appeals for the issues of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for pseudofolliculitis barbae, whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder (to include as secondary to a service-connected lumbar spine disability), and the underlying issue of entitlement to service connection for an anxiety disorder. The appeals were dismissed.