Prostate cancer Board decisions

The veteran's claim for service connection for prostate cancer, including as a residual of herbicide exposure, is being remanded due to incomplete information and procedural issues.

The veteran's service-connected residuals of prostate cancer are currently manifested by urinary incontinence requiring the use of 4 or more absorbent pads per day, and a 60 percent rating is granted effective from August 1, 2002.

The Board is remanding the case for additional development and notification, including verification of the veteran's service in Vietnam or exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board found no evidence to support the veteran's claims for service connection of prostate cancer, skin conditions, and granuloma of the right lung due to asbestos exposure. The bilateral knee disability was also denied.

The veteran's claim for service connection for prostate cancer is being remanded due to the need for clarification of exposure details, additional medical evidence, and a VA examination.

The veteran is granted special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance due to his multiple service-connected disabilities, including degenerative joint disease of various joints and arrhythmia. He does not meet criteria for housebound status.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for a rating in excess of 40 percent for residuals of prostate cancer and a compensable rating for impotence, finding that the evidence does not support these increased ratings.

The veteran's claim of service connection for prostate cancer is being remanded due to concerns about the validity of dose estimates provided by DTRA. The case will be re-adjudicated after taking necessary actions.

The veteran's claim for service connection for post-operative residuals of prostate cancer is being remanded due to the submission of additional evidence that has not been preliminarily reviewed by the RO.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for initial compensable evaluations for prostate cancer and impotence, finding that neither condition warrants a higher evaluation based on current symptoms.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to inadequate VCAA notice and the need for additional development of his claims.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of March 15, 2001 for a 100% rating for prostate cancer, finding that there was no CUE in reducing the rating to 40% and that increased disability had not occurred prior to March 15, 2001.

The Board has granted a 60 percent disability rating for the veteran's service-connected status post prostatectomy, effective from when the maximum schedular rating is available under the circumstances.

The Board has granted a 40 percent rating for the appellant's service-connected residuals of prostate cancer, effective from November 29, 2001. The claim for erectile dysfunction was also granted with a zero percent evaluation.

The veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his death, and no further action can be taken on the claims.

The Board found that the veteran's death from a pulmonary embolism and probable prostate cancer was not caused by or related to his military service, and thus denied the claim for service connection for the cause of death.

The veteran's initial claim for a higher evaluation for prostate cancer residuals was granted, with an effective date of September 10, 2001.

The Board finds that the veteran's service-connected PTSD did not cause or contribute substantially to his death from colon and prostate cancer. The claim for DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 is denied as there was no evidence of a service-connected disability rated as totally disabling for at least ten years immediately preceding death.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to fully adjudicate the veteran's claims for service connection for prostate cancer and hepatitis C, including obtaining relevant medical records and conducting examinations.

The veteran seeks service connection for skin cancer and prostate cancer, claimed as secondary to exposure to ionizing radiation. The case is being remanded due to the need for additional development regarding dose estimates.