Prostate cancer decisions — 2026

The Board dismissed the appeal of a proposed reduction in the rating for prostate cancer with voiding dysfunction from 100 percent to 40 percent because the AOJ had not yet made a final determination on the issue.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's radiation exposure and its potential impact on his prostate cancer. The AOJ is instructed to obtain a dose estimate from VA Compensation Services and seek an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's prostate cancer was caused by service-related radiation exposure.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for prostate cancer, bladder condition, and ED due to potential toxic exposure during service. Further examination is needed to determine if these conditions are related to his military service.

The Board has remanded the claims of entitlement to an initial rating greater than 0 percent for erectile dysfunction, entitlement to service connection for insomnia, and entitlement to a rating greater than 20 percent for prostate cancer due to duty-to-assist errors.

The Veteran's disability rating for prostate cancer residuals was reduced from 60 percent to 40 percent, but the Board reversed this decision due to failure to follow regulations and lack of sustained improvement evidence.

The Veteran's prostate cancer and erectile dysfunction were granted service connection effective February 21, 2020.,Special monthly compensation for loss of use of a creative organ was also granted effective February 21, 2020.

The Board has remanded the case due to a duty to assist error, specifically regarding the Veteran's exposure to radiation during his service. The AOJ is required to seek records from U.S. Army Medical Command for occupational exposure to ionizing radiation at various locations including Sandia Base in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The Board has remanded the case due to a duty to assist error, specifically failing to obtain an ionizing dose estimate based on potential exposure to radiation during service. The Veteran's military records and post-service medical records will be reviewed for any relevant information.

The Veteran's claim for a TDIU prior to December 1, 2021 was denied as the evidence did not show that he was unable to obtain and maintain employment solely due to one service-connected disability.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is granted service connection due to presumed exposure to herbicide agents in Guam and Thailand, as provided by the PACT Act.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for service connection on prostate cancer, erectile dysfunction, and urinary incontinence.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is presumed to be etiologically related to in-service exposure to herbicides, and the Board grants service connection for this condition.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's prostate cancer is not service-connected, as there is no evidence of herbicide exposure near the Korean DMZ during his service. The claim for service connection was denied.

The Veteran's service-connected PTSD and hearing loss prevent him from securing or following gainful employment, leading to a TDIU award.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for prostate cancer, to include residuals of incontinence and leakage, finding that his condition is at least as likely as not related to his in-service exposure to industrial solvents.

The Veteran's service connection claims for arteriosclerotic heart disease/coronary artery disease, prostate cancer residuals with radical prostatectomy residuals, and Type II diabetes mellitus are all granted due to presumed exposure to herbicide agents during his service near the Korean DMZ.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate VA medical opinions and a pre-decisional duty to assist error. The Veteran's cause of death is being reviewed, with an emphasis on whether his service-connected prostate cancer contributed substantially or materially to his death.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, hypertension, and prostate cancer are remanded due to conflicting VA toxic exposure records. The Veteran's claim for higher ratings for his scar residuals is also remanded.

The Board has granted service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death due to exposure to herbicide agents in Vietnam, including Agent Orange. The decision is based on the presumption that the Veteran was exposed during his service.

The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically regarding the Veteran's prostate cancer and its relation to in-service radiation exposure. The AOJ is required to complete necessary development under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311 and obtain a medical opinion from a qualified clinician.