Prostate cancer Board decisions

The Veteran's bladder cancer is not service-connected as his exposure to herbicides did not play a role in the development of this condition. His prostate cancer residuals are service-connected, but do not warrant a compensable rating.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development and consideration of all submitted evidence, including an expert medical opinion regarding malignant melanoma. The claim will be considered in light of new theories of entitlement such as secondary service connection.

From August 1, 2007 to June 9, 2009, the Veteran's prostate cancer residuals warranted a 40 percent rating.,Since November 5, 2012, the Veteran's urinary incontinence has required changing absorbent pads more than four times per day, warranting an even higher 60 percent rating.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bladder cancer is related to his service-connected prostate cancer treatment, and thus grants service connection for the disability.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to verify the appellant's service periods and obtain his medical records. The appeal will be remanded for these purposes.

The Veteran's claim of service connection for loss of the gallbladder has been withdrawn. The reduction of his rating for residuals of prostate cancer from 100% to 60%, effective September 1, 2011, was denied.

The Board denied the claim for service connection of the cause of death due to end-stage cancer (cholangiocarcinoma), finding that it was not related to Agent Orange exposure or service-connected conditions. The Veteran's pulmonary fibrosis, a non-presumptive condition, was also found to be less likely than not caused by service.

The Veteran's prostate cancer was not incurred or aggravated during his honorable period of service, and there is no evidence to support a finding that it is related to herbicide exposure in Vietnam. The Board denied the claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for prostate cancer and colon cancer due to herbicide exposure are being remanded for additional development, including verification of the Division to which his unit was attached during the qualifying time period.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is presumed to be due to his exposure to Agent Orange while on active duty in Thailand, and service connection for this condition is granted.

The Veteran's prostate cancer, status-post prostatectomy, is currently rated at 20 percent since April 9, 2012. The initial rating of noncompensable from August 10, 2010 to April 8, 2012 was granted.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to conclusively establish whether the Veteran was exposed to hazardous carcinogenic materials/contaminants while stationed on Guam from October 1960 to April 1962, and if so, whether his prostate cancer is related to such exposure.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer are being remanded due to the need for further development, including verifying his service in Vietnam and obtaining relevant medical records.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for higher ratings for residuals of prostate cancer and hepatitis B, as well as his attempt to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for back disability. The evidence submitted since the last final decision was not sufficient to reopen the claim for service connection for back disability.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is service-connected due to herbicide exposure, and he is granted a 60 percent rating for his lumbar spine disability. The TDIU claim is also granted.

The Board found that the reduction of the evaluation for the Veteran's service-connected prostate cancer from a 100 percent to a 60 percent evaluation was proper based on the evidence at the time.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for prostate cancer and Guillain-Barre Syndrome are being remanded due to an inability to verify his presence in Vietnam. The RO is instructed to attempt verification through the JSRRC, AFHRA, and NARA.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to obtain a current VA examination for his service-connected benign prostatic hypertrophy with urinary dysfunction and to consider the theory of presumptive service connection for prostate cancer based on exposure to herbicides. The issue of Dependents' Educational Assistance eligibility is also addressed.

The Veteran's urinary leakage is not considered a service-connected condition that requires use of a prosthetic device or medication causing damage to his clothing, thus denying the claim for an annual clothing allowance.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining records of the Veteran's travel status to and from Thailand in July 1966 and July 1967. The appeal is now pending again with the Board.