Prostate cancer decisions — 2009

The Veteran's appeal regarding the reduction of his prostate cancer evaluation from 100 percent to 20 percent has been withdrawn, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

The Board has denied the appellant's claims for service connection for bladder cancer, prostate cancer, and hepatitis C with liver cirrhosis. The Board found that there is no evidence of liver cancer.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for prostate cancer was denied as there is no evidence to support a link between his military service and the condition.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for a VA examination to determine if his service-connected disabilities alone render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation.

The Veteran's prostate cancer was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and may not be presumed to have been incurred in or aggravated by service. As such, the claim for service connection is denied.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for prostate cancer was received on May 17, 2005. The effective date of the award is set to that date due to the provisions of VA regulations regarding presumptive service connection for diseases associated with herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional evidence and a VA examination.

The Board denied service connection for prostate enlargement and cancer, finding no evidence of a current disability or association with military service.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including as a result of exposure to herbicides, are being remanded due to incomplete service records and changes in procedures for verifying Agent Orange exposure.

The Board found that the reduction from a 100 percent rating to a 10 percent rating for prostate cancer with prostatectomy, effective April 1, 2007 was in accordance with procedural due process and determined that a 10 percent rating is appropriate based on urinary leakage.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection of prostate cancer has been dismissed due to his death.

The Board denied the appellant's claim to reopen her DIC claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death due to lack of new and material evidence. The Veteran's pancreatic cancer was presumed to be caused by exposure to Agent Orange during service.

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 claim for an earlier effective date for prostate cancer was denied as the earliest possible effective date is October 18, 2005.

The Board has determined that additional notice is needed and the case is being remanded for further development.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including clarification of prior service and VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed disabilities.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for prostate cancer, finding no nexus between his claimed in-service asbestos exposure and his current condition. The Board also found that there was no evidence of a disease manifesting within one year of service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's multiple sclerosis is presumed to have been incurred in service, and he is granted service connection for this condition. The claims for prostate cancer and type II diabetes mellitus are denied as there is no evidence of herbicide exposure during service.

The Board denied the claim for DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318, finding that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for entitlement to such benefits as he was not rated totally disabled continuously for a period of at least 10 years immediately preceding death.

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.