Prostate cancer decisions — 2011

The Veteran's claims for service connection for type II diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, hypertension, a right knee disability, a circulatory condition, and erectile dysfunction were denied. The Board found no credible or competent evidence of current disabilities in these conditions.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for diabetes mellitus, type 2, prostate cancer, colon cancer, and hypertension. The evidence did not establish a link between these conditions and his military service.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine the Veteran's exposure to herbicides and ionizing radiation, as well as his treatment for hemorrhagic cystitis. The case will be remanded for these purposes.

The reduction in the rating for the Veteran's prostate cancer from 100% to 20% was improper as there is no evidence showing when or if the radioactive seeds became inert.

The Board found that the Veteran's prostate cancer had been effectively treated and there was no recurrence or metastasis, thus allowing for a reduction from a 100% to a 40% disability rating. The Veteran's urinary incontinence is rated at 40%.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is being remanded for further development to determine if it is related to his service in Guam and exposure to Agent Orange.

The Board has restored service connection for the residuals of prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus, Type II. The original grants were based on presumed exposure to herbicides during service in Vietnam.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities are of such severity so as to preclude substantially gainful employment, and he is therefore entitled to a TDIU rating.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for prostate cancer, including as due to herbicide exposure in Korea, is being remanded for additional development to verify his claimed exposure.

The Veteran's service connection claims for diabetes mellitus, type II; prostate cancer; ischemic heart disease (CAD); and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities are all granted based on exposure to herbicides during his service in Korea.

The Veteran's death was attributed to metastatic prostate cancer. The appellant seeks service connection for the cause of his death, claiming it is due to herbicide exposure during his service in Panama Canal Zone. The case has been remanded for further investigation into Agent Orange use in the Panama Canal Zone.

The Board has remanded the case to comply with VA regulations regarding accrued benefits for prostate cancer due to radiation exposure during service. The Veteran's claim will be reviewed again by the RO or AMC.

The Veteran's prostate cancer residuals, including urinary frequency, are rated at 20 percent effective July 19, 2010.

The Veteran's prostate cancer was not shown to be related to his military service, including any exposure to Agent Orange. The Board found that the Veteran did not have presumptive exposure to Agent Orange due to his service in Vietnam and thus could not establish a claim based on presumed exposure.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's residuals of prostate cancer do not warrant a rating in excess of 20 percent, as his urinary dysfunction is primarily manifested by voiding intervals between one and two hours during the day and two to three times each night. The Veteran does not use absorbent garments or require catheterizations.

The Board finds that the service-connected prostate cancer contributed to the Veteran's death due to advanced kidney cancer, and grants service connection for the cause of death.

The Veteran's residuals of prostate cancer, status-post radical prostatectomy, are currently rated at a 60 percent evaluation effective August 1, 2008.

The Board has determined that the reduction of the Veteran's prostate cancer rating from 100% to 60%, effective May 1, 2009 was not proper due to insufficient evidence regarding the presence or absence of metastasis.

The case is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and confirming the Veteran's alleged in-service exposure to radiation or chemicals. The Veteran will also be afforded a new examination for his service-connected PTSD.

The Board found no evidence of a nexus between the Veteran's current disabilities and service, including on a continuity of symptomatology basis. Therefore, the claims for service connection were denied.