Prostate cancer decisions — 2023

The Board denied service connection for type II diabetes mellitus, left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy, and prostate cancer as there was no evidence of herbicide exposure or in-service onset.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of VA examination and private treatment records, requiring further development.

The Veteran's service connection for prostate cancer is granted under the provisions of the PACT Act, but the claim based on other theories remains pending and remanded.

Your claims for increased ratings for prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus type II have been dismissed as the issues were already addressed in a previous Board decision.

The Veteran's bladder condition is being remanded for further evaluation and a medical opinion to determine if it is secondary to his service-connected prostate cancer.

The Veteran's prostate cancer and related disabilities were denied service connection due to lack of evidence showing onset or relationship to service.,Service connection for PTSD was also denied, as the Veteran did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his condition manifested in service.

The Board dismissed the Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for prostate cancer service connection, finding no legal basis to award such a date prior to April 30, 2013.

The Veteran's prostate disability is related to his military service, specifically his in-service exposure to herbicide agents like Agent Orange. The Board has ordered a TERA examination to determine the relationship between the Veteran's prostate condition and his service.

Service connection for prostate cancer is granted without application of the PACT Act. A rating of 20 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy (sciatic nerve) is granted.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is presumed to be due to herbicide exposure during his service in Korea near the DMZ. The Board granted service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's initial rating for his right and left knee disabilities, cervical spine disability, erectile dysfunction, and prostate cancer residuals have been denied. The appeal is remanded for further consideration of service connection for PTSD.

The Board has determined that there was a duty to assist error in obtaining the Veteran's service records and personnel records, which were fire-related. The Board finds it necessary to remand the case for further development of information regarding the Veteran's exposure to radiation during his service.

The Board has granted service connection for prostate cancer, testicular cancer, loss of a testicle (secondary to testicular cancer), and erectile dysfunction (secondary to loss of a testicle) due to exposure to fire extinguishing foam during active duty.

The Veteran's prostate cancer was not shown to be related to service, including herbicide exposure. The heart disability was also not shown to be related to service.,Meningitis is being remanded for further evaluation as the claimant believes it may be related to his military service.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for prostate cancer and diabetes mellitus type II, finding that there is no evidence of in-service exposure to herbicide agents or hazardous chemicals. The Board also found that there was insufficient medical evidence linking these conditions to service.

The Veteran's prostate cancer was not incurred or aggravated during service, and there is no evidence of herbicide exposure. The Board denied the claim for service connection.

The appeal for service connection of prostate cancer is dismissed because the Veteran died before a decision could be made.

The Board has ordered a remand to determine the nature and severity of the service-connected prostate cancer residuals, including any renal dysfunction. The current VA evaluation is deemed insufficient.

The Board denied service connection for CAD, squamous cell carcinoma, and prostate cancer. The Veteran's claim for bilateral hearing loss was dismissed as it had already been granted in a prior decision.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal in its entirety prior to the promulgation of a decision, leaving no issues for further consideration.