Prostate cancer decisions — 2016

The Veteran's claim for TDIU is being remanded due to the need for a new VA examination and vocational assessment, as well as updated treatment records.

The Veteran has withdrawn his appeals regarding the issues of entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 60 percent for prostate cancer status post radical prostatectomy due to herbicide exposure, entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee degenerative changes, and entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right ankle strain.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining VA and private treatment records, providing proper VCAA notice, and scheduling a VA examination to assess the severity of his left shoulder disorder.

The Veteran's appeal for a higher initial rating for prostate cancer residuals has been withdrawn. The Board also found that the Veteran is not unemployable due to his service-connected disabilities.

The Veteran's prostate cancer residuals have been rated at a maximum of 60 percent since January 2005, effective from the date of claim. The higher rating is granted based on his need to change absorbent materials more than four times per day.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including verifying overpayment and copayment amounts, and considering whether the Veteran's income was reduced due to these factors. The claim will be reconsidered based on this additional information.

The Veteran's service-connected residuals of prostate cancer, including urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction, were found to be manifested by severe symptoms prior to February 17, 2016. Effective from December 1, 2009, the Veteran was granted a 20 percent rating for these conditions.

The Veteran's diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, and pancreatic cancer were not service-connected. The cause of death was also not service-connected.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for an SOC addressing whether the reduction in his prostate cancer evaluation from 100% to 30% effective June 1, 2011 was proper. The issues of service connection for a low back disability and TDIU will be addressed in a separate decision.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is not considered to be caused by or permanently worsened in severity by his service-connected malignant melanoma.

The Veteran seeks service connection for prostate cancer, which he claims is related to his herbicide exposure during service in Korea. The Board has determined that additional development is needed to verify the Veteran's alleged in-service herbicide exposure and proximity to the DMZ.

The Veteran's service-connected prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction have resulted in loss of use of a creative organ, warranting special monthly compensation.

The Board found that the reduction of the prostate cancer disability rating from 100% to 0% was proper, but denied the Veteran's request for restoration of a 100% disability rating. The claim for service connection for skin cancer was reopened due to new evidence received since the February 2000 denial.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the previously denied claims for service connection for prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus, Type II has been received.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for prostate cancer with probable metastasis at L2 as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation. The claim was previously denied due to insufficient evidence, but the Veteran argues that his previous dose calculation was inaccurate and he should be considered exposed based on his specialized work in-service.

The Veteran's prostate cancer residuals are currently rated at 40 percent since September 1, 2010. The Board found no basis for a higher rating based on the current evidence of record.

The Board finds that the Veteran does not have a current prostate disability and there is no evidence of service connection for any in-service disease or injury. The presumptive regulations regarding herbicide exposure are not applicable due to lack of credible evidence showing Vietnam service.

The Board has granted service connection for ischemic heart disease as due to exposure to herbicides. The issue of prostate cancer is remanded.

The Veteran's prostate cancer was not present during service or for many years thereafter, and the record evidence does not show that it is otherwise related to his military service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus, type II, finding no evidence of in-service exposure to herbicides or other factors linking these conditions to his military service.