Prostate cancer decisions — 2016

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not preclude him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation consistent with his education and occupational experience.

The Veteran's prostate cancer was reduced from a 100% to a 40% rating effective May 1, 2010. The Board found that the reduction was proper and granted an initial PTSD rating of 50%. No TDIU was granted.

The Veteran's claims for prostate cancer and skin cancer are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining dose data from the Department of Defense regarding his exposure during Operation Redwing. His hearing loss claim is also being remanded for an updated VA examination.

The Veteran died in January 2013 due to pancreatic cancer, which was not related to service or presumed herbicide exposure. His prostate cancer and diabetes did not cause his death.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is found to be related to his military service, with the Board finding that exposure to dioxins in Guam contributed to his risk for prostate cancer.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for hypertension. The prostate cancer claim is pending and will be remanded for further development.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development to determine if the Veteran was exposed to herbicide exposure while serving on the USS Shasta and whether this exposure is related to his prostate cancer.

The Veteran's residuals of prostate cancer have been rated at 60 percent since May 4, 2010. The issue of service connection for thrombophlebitis, right lower leg is currently pending and will be addressed in a separate decision.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for a dental disorder, diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, and glaucoma (secondary to diabetes) have been denied. The Board found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for direct service connection in all cases.

The Veteran is seeking an initial compensable evaluation for his erectile dysfunction. The Board observes that the Veteran's service-connected erectile dysfunction is already compensated for an inability to perform sexual intercourse with a special monthly compensation based on the loss of use of a creative organ. However, he asserts total impotence and deformity of the penis following September 2008 surgery for prostate cancer.

The Veteran's service connection claims for pancreatic neoplasm and status post prostate cancer with stress incontinence are both granted due to presumed exposure to herbicides during his military service.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is presumed to have been incurred by service due to herbicide exposure. The Board has granted service connection for prostate cancer, but the issue of erectile dysfunction remains pending as it was not raised in his appeal.

The Veteran's lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, left hip/buttock disability, and prostate cancer are all found to be service-connected.

The Veteran died due to metastatic esophageal cancer, and the appellant claims this was caused by his in-service exposure to Agent Orange. The VA is instructed to determine if the Veteran served in Vietnam or near the DMZ during his service in Korea.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete development and failure to issue a supplemental statement of the case.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is presumed to be related to his military service due to herbicide exposure in Vietnam, and the Board has granted service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including schizophrenia and coronary artery disease, necessitate aid and attendance of another person due to his need for medication compliance. As a result, SMC based on the need for regular aid and attendance is granted.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's diagnosed prostate cancer, benign thyroid nodules, posterior subcapsular cataract of the left eye, squamous cell carcinoma of the left hand, and anemia are not related to his military service or exposure to ionizing radiation. The evidence does not support a finding that these conditions were incurred in or aggravated by service.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a new VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his prostate cancer residuals, including any associated voiding or urinary frequency dysfunction. The issues are whether he should receive an increased rating for prostate cancer and if absence of ejaculation secondary to prostate cancer warrants a compensable rating.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service connection claims require additional information and evidence, specifically regarding his exposure to herbicides during service. The case is being remanded for further action.