Prostate cancer decisions — 2017

The Veteran's prostate cancer was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and may not be presumed to have been incurred therein.

The Veteran was awarded special monthly compensation based on the need for aid and attendance in December 2003, effective May 28, 2003. The appellant seeks accrued benefits for this increased monetary benefit but it has been determined that the payment was made.

The Veteran's prostate cancer, status post prostatectomy, is rated at 60 percent since February 2, 2016.,The Veteran does not have deformity of the penis as part of his erectile dysfunction.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's erectile dysfunction and prostate cancer are not related to his service-connected prostatitis, and thus denied both claims for service connection.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including the scheduling of VA examinations to determine the etiology of his prostate cancer and any acquired psychiatric disorder. The AOJ will also consider possible Agent Orange exposure.

The Veteran's claims for increased disability ratings and TDIU are being remanded due to the need for additional development.

The Veteran's prostate cancer residuals are rated at 60 percent, and he is granted TDIU for the period from March 1, 2012 to February 5, 2016. His erectile dysfunction remains noncompensable.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for prostate cancer residuals was granted, with the effective date set at August 22, 2014. The issue of SMC at the housebound rate was also granted, effective from August 22, 2014.

The Veteran's claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 18 is denied because he does not have a form or manifestation of spina bifida, and his biological mother was not a Vietnam veteran.

The Board has granted service connection for prostate cancer and supraglottic larynx cancer, both of which are presumed to be due to herbicide exposure during the Veteran's service in Thailand. Service connection is also granted for squamous cell carcinoma, but it was not determined if this condition is related to herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings of his lumbar spine disability and service connection for prostate cancer were denied. The claim for TDIU was also denied.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, singly or in combination, are not so severe as to prevent him from obtaining and maintaining substantially gainful employment consistent with his level of education and occupational experience. The Board finds that the Veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment given his educational and occupational history.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is being remanded for further development, including verification of exposure to herbicide agents in Korea at Osan Air Base.

The Board has remanded the claims for further development due to inconsistencies in medical opinions and need for additional evidence regarding TB endemicity in Korea.

The Veteran's prostate cancer residuals, including voiding dysfunction requiring absorbent pads changed more than four times per day since August 27, 2012, warrant a rating of 60 percent.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's prostate cancer, diagnosed in 1996, is presumptively linked to herbicide exposure during his service in Korea. As a result, the claim for service connection is granted.

The Board is remanding the case to conduct a video conference hearing for the Veteran as requested.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed colon and prostate conditions. The AOJ must also obtain a dose estimate from the Under Secretary for Health if it is determined that the Veteran's current condition(s) are radiogenic diseases.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is being remanded for further development to determine if it is due to exposure to ionizing radiation during service. The AOJ must seek a revised dose estimate that considers the Veteran's testimony regarding his proximity to the testing site and exposure to seawater.

The Board denied the petition to reopen the claim of service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding no new and material evidence. The issue regarding CUE in the November 2000 decision was granted.