The Veteran's claim for compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for a penile disorder, including erectile dysfunction, following VA hospital care and/or surgery in June 2000 was denied as there was no evidence that the additional disability was caused by carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA.
The deciding factor: The VA examiner found that erectile dysfunction is a foreseeable event as a result of this type of surgery and that to find it solely due to the surgery would require sheer speculation. The preoperative consent form reviewed by the Veteran included information about potential risks, including erectile dysfunction.
- Claimed conditions
- erectile dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- February 10, 2009
- Citation
- 0904848
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,035 · Granted: 30% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 0904848.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, visual impairment, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction due to lack of exposure to herbicide agents during service. The Veteran's claims were not granted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the Veteran meets the basic medical eligibility criteria for PCAFC benefits due to his need for personal care services based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury. However, further clinical evaluation is needed to determine if participation in the program is in the Veteran's best interest.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for prostate cancer, coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes mellitus type II (DM II), hypertension, and erectile dysfunction as secondary to service-connected DM II. The Veteran's exposure to Agent Orange during active service is presumed.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.