Prostate cancer Board decisions

The Board has determined that the veteran's prostate cancer is not related to service and denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran's prostate cancer was not incurred in or aggravated during service, nor may it be presumed to have been so incurred due to herbicide exposure. The Board found no evidence of duty or visitation in Vietnam and thus could not apply the presumption for herbicide-exposed veterans.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for tinnitus disability and prostate cancer, finding no evidence linking these conditions to his active duty service.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claim for prostate cancer due to exposure to herbicides, specifically Agent Orange. The RO is instructed to obtain additional evidence from the veteran regarding his claimed exposure and to contact relevant agencies to verify his duty or visitation in Vietnam during service.

The veteran's claim for service connection for prostate cancer as a result of exposure to herbicide agents during his tour in Korea is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including verification of potential exposure and correction of VCAA notice.

The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss, finding no evidence of a causal link between the veteran's current condition and his military service.,The claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 was also denied, as there is insufficient evidence to establish that the veteran's prostate cancer resulted from VA treatment in February 1999.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for prostate cancer, finding that there was no evidence of radiation exposure in service and insufficient medical evidence to link his current condition to service.

The veteran's prostate cancer is not considered to be due to service or radiation exposure, and the claim was denied.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for service connection for prostate cancer, which he claimed was due to exposure to ionizing radiation during his military service. The evidence did not show that the prostate cancer was present until after service or that it is related to any incident of service.

The Board found that the veteran's heart disease was not incurred in or aggravated by active service and denied his claim for service connection. The prostate cancer issue is pending as it relates to a new evidence submission.

The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus and prostate cancer, finding that the conditions were not incurred or aggravated by service and did not arise from exposure to herbicides (Agent Orange).

The Board is remanding the case for further development, including verification of the veteran's unit location in Korea and a VA examination to determine if his prostate cancer was due to exposure to Agent Orange.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer due to exposure to ionizing radiation, finding that his prostate cancer was not caused by his in-service exposure and is not otherwise related to events during active service.

The veteran's claim for a compensable rating for erectile dysfunction as secondary to his service-connected prostate cancer is being remanded due to incomplete development of the record.

The Board denied the veteran's claim to reopen his previously denied service connection for prostate cancer, including as a result of herbicide exposure. The evidence submitted since the October 1999 decision did not provide new and material evidence.

The Board has determined that the veteran's residuals of prostate cancer surgery do not warrant a rating higher than 60 percent, and thus denied his claim for restoration of a 100 percent rating.

The Board has determined that additional development is necessary prior to completion of its appellate review, including reviewing new evidence and scheduling a VA genitourinary examination.

The veteran's appeal has been withdrawn, and the case is dismissed as a result.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 40 percent for postoperative residuals of prostate cancer, finding that the evidence does not support such a higher rating based on urinary leakage requiring use of an appliance or wearing absorbent materials more than four times per day.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and readjudication due to incomplete records and need for clarification of clinical test results.