Prostate cancer decisions — 2010

The Board denied the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, finding insufficient evidence to establish exposure to herbicides and no credible in-service injury or disease.

The Veteran's appeal was denied as he does not have currently-diagnosed skin cancer associated with his active military service. Service connection for prostate cancer is addressed in the REMAND portion of the decision.

The Board has determined that the reduction of the Veteran's prostate cancer evaluation from 100% to 10% effective October 1, 2005 was proper. The current residuals require a 10% evaluation.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for prostate cancer, infertility, and urinary problems have been denied. The claim for erectile dysfunction remains pending.

The Veteran's appeal was denied as his service-connected conditions did not warrant a higher rating under the applicable criteria.

The Board finds that the Veteran's service-connected prostate cancer residuals are primarily manifested by voiding dysfunction, which warrants a 40 percent rating from May 1, 2008. The reduction of his assigned rating from 100 to 40 percent was proper.

The RO's decision to reduce the Veteran's disability rating for prostate cancer from 100 percent to 20 percent effective November 1, 2007 is void ab initio due to an inadequate VA examination report.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's prostate cancer is not due to radiation exposure during service and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Board finds that the Veteran's prostate cancer has improved and does not warrant a restoration of his previous 100 percent rating.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of radical retropubic prostatectomy, bilateral pelvic lymphadenectomy due to prostate cancer with urinary incontinence was granted effective from August 4, 2006.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is presumed to have been incurred in active military service due to herbicide exposure, specifically Agent Orange used along the DMZ in Korea.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type 2 and prostate cancer, both due to herbicide exposure. The evidence did not show current diagnoses of these conditions.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including prostate cancer, bilateral elbow disabilities, DJD of hips and knees/ankles, plantar calcaneal spur, low back disability, loss of teeth, and bilateral hearing loss. The evidence does not support a finding that these conditions are related to military service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for prostate cancer is being remanded due to the need for an adequate examination and consideration of his chronic prostatitis in-service.

The RO properly discontinued the 100% rating for prostate cancer and assigned a 40% rating for residuals of prostate cancer, status post prostatectomy from August 1, 2006.

The Veteran's initial 100% rating for prostate cancer was reduced to a 10% rating effective March 1, 2007. For the period beginning October 28, 2009, his residuals of prostate cancer warrant a 20% rating.

The Veteran's disability rating for residuals of prostate cancer was reduced from 100 percent to 20 percent, effective January 1, 2008. The Board has ordered a remand due to the need for an updated VA examination to assess the current severity of his service-connected disability.

The Board denied the claim for service connection for prostate cancer, finding that there is no competent medical evidence showing the veteran currently has this condition and thus denying the claim.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is presumed to have been incurred in service due to Agent Orange exposure. He also meets the criteria for special monthly compensation on account of loss of use of a creative organ.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for residuals of prostate cancer was denied as the evidence did not show symptoms that would warrant a higher rating. For his service-connected residuals of bilateral foot immersion, he is not entitled to a compensable rating due to the lack of affected body surface area and no systemic therapy required.