Prostate cancer Board decisions

The Board has granted a 60 percent evaluation for prostate cancer with prostatectomy, effective January 3, 2008.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for prostate cancer, secondary to herbicide exposure is being remanded due to the need for additional development and verification of his alleged exposure in Thailand.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for erectile dysfunction, finding that it was not incurred or aggravated by active service and not caused or aggravated by a service-connected disorder.

The Board found that the Veteran's aspermia, prostate cancer, and vitiligo were all incurred in his active service. The Board determined that there was no evidence to support a finding of radiation exposure or any other specific service connection theory.

The Veteran's prostate cancer was reduced from a 100% evaluation to a 60% evaluation effective February 1, 2007. His residuals of prostate cancer have resulted in continual urine leakage requiring six to twelve pads a day.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for a new examination to assess the severity of his service-connected prostate cancer residuals, which may have worsened since his last VA examination in April 2009.

The Veteran's prostate cancer and chronic lymphocytic leukemia are presumed to be the result of exposure to herbicides (Agent Orange) during active service.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development, including a VA examination and review of medical opinions regarding service connection for prostate cancer and atrial fibrillation.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's service connection claim for prostate cancer, and finds that new and material evidence has been submitted. The case is now remanded to determine if the Veteran's prostate cancer was caused or contributed to by radiation exposure during his naval service.

The Veteran's adenocarcinoma of the prostate/prostate cancer was not incurred in or aggravated by active duty military service.

The Veteran's prostate cancer is presumed to be related to herbicide exposure, but the claim must be remanded for further development regarding his alleged exposure to Agent Orange in Korea.

The Veteran's prostate cancer residuals are currently rated as 40 percent disabling. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 40 percent for residuals of prostate cancer with voiding dysfunction since May 1, 2005.

The Veteran's unauthorized private medical expenses for prostate cancer treatment were denied as the surgery was not a medical emergency and VA facilities were feasibly available.

The Board has determined that the reduction of the Veteran's prostate cancer disability rating from 100% to 10% effective July 1, 2009 was warranted based on objective evidence demonstrating he no longer received therapeutic procedures for his condition and there was no reoccurrence or metastasis. The criteria for an evaluation greater than 10% were not met.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining Social Security Administration records and verifying the claimed stressor related to SCUD missile attacks.

The Veteran's prostate cancer residuals are rated at 40%, and his PTSD is rated at 30%. His bilateral hearing loss remains at 20%.

The Board has determined that further development is needed to address the appellant's claims, including obtaining additional medical records and providing proper VCAA notice. The Veteran passed away due to complications from congestive heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal regarding the issue of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 20 percent for residuals of prostate cancer, status post radiation.

The Board found no evidence of the Veteran's service in Vietnam and thus denied his claims for service connection based on herbicide exposure.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for a penile injury and prostate cancer are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining medical records and opinions regarding the etiology of his conditions.