Prostate cancer decisions — 2000

The veteran's appeal is about the propriety of the initial noncompensable rating for his service-connected prostate cancer, status post radiation therapy. The Board has ordered a new examination to assess the current severity of the condition.

The veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including prostate cancer and posterior subcapsular cataracts, liver disorder, lung disorder, rib disorder, alopecia, and arthritis of multiple joints are not well grounded as there is no evidence showing these conditions were related to his military service or exposure to ionizing radiation.

The Board is remanding the veteran's claims for service connection for prostate cancer and skin cancer as secondary to exposure to ionizing radiation due to a lack of clarity in the dose estimate data provided by the Defense Nuclear Agency (DTRA). The Court instructed the Board to seek clarification from DTRA regarding the range of doses pertinent to the veteran's unit.

The veteran's death was caused by lung cancer, which is presumed to be related to his service-connected prostate cancer. The appellant is eligible for Dependents' Educational Assistance.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an effective date prior to July 1, 1996 for the grant of entitlement to DIC due to prostate cancer secondary to Agent Orange exposure. The preponderance of evidence did not support a request for an earlier effective date.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for prostate cancer and residuals of bilateral orchiectomy due to exposure to ionizing radiation, finding no reasonable possibility that these conditions were caused by such exposure.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for the cause of death secondary to exposure to ionizing radiation, finding that there was no reasonable possibility that the veteran's disability was caused by his exposure to radiation in service.

The Board has determined that the appellant's claim for service connection for prostate cancer as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation is well grounded and VA must assist in its development. The appellant was exposed to ionizing radiation during Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE, entered within 500-700 yards of ground zero following Shot GRABLE, and has provided medical evidence of treatment for prostate cancer many years after service.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, entitlement to DIC under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318, and entitlement to Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance under 38 U.S.C.A. Chapter 35.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected prostate cancer residuals is being remanded due to the need for a current VA examination.

The veteran's claims for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized private medical services provided from September 1996 to August 1998 are denied as he did not meet the criteria for reimbursement under VA regulations.

The veteran's claim for an annual clothing allowance is denied as his need to use diapers does not meet the legal requirements for such a benefit.

The veteran's prostate cancer in postoperative status is rated at 20 percent, the maximum schedular rating available.

The Board found no new and material evidence to reopen the claims for skin cancer and prostate cancer as secondary to ionizing radiation exposure, denying both claims.

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

The Board has determined that the appellant's bladder cancer is as likely as not due to Agent Orange exposure in service, and thus grants service connection for residuals of a radical cystoprostatectomy with construction of a permanent ileal conduit for cancer of the bladder. However, there is no competent medical evidence showing prostate cancer, so service connection for prostate cancer secondary to Agent Orange exposure cannot be granted.

The Board determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for prostate cancer, resulting in a denial of the appeal.

The Board found the claims for PTSD and residuals of a left eye injury are well grounded, but denied the claims for a skin disorder (claimed as lymphoma) and prostate cancer secondary to Agent Orange exposure. The claim for increased evaluation for residuals of a left wrist injury is addressed in the remand portion.

The Board has restored the 100 percent rating for prostate cancer, but denied an increased rating for residuals of prostate cancer. The appellant's status post-prostate cancer is manifested by urinary incontinence requiring absorbent materials changed more than four times a day and impotence.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for prostate cancer on a secondary basis, prostatitis, and bilateral hearing loss. The claim of service connection for tonsillectomy residuals was also denied.