The veteran's daughter (substitute appellant after his death) appealed the denial of an earlier effective date and higher rating for coronary artery disease, the reduction of his prostate cancer rating from 100% to 20%, and the denial of service connection for obstructive sleep apnea. The Board denied the earlier effective date and higher CAD rating, upheld the prostate cancer rating reduction, and remanded the OSA claim for further development under the PACT Act.

The deciding factor: The CAD effective date was properly set at March 2, 2012 because objective evidence of clinically identifiable disease did not appear until that date despite the claim filing in November 2009; the 30% CAD rating was appropriate because the evidence showed no episodes of heart failure or severely limited workload capacity; the prostate cancer rating reduction was procedurally proper and supported by evidence showing cancer remission; and the OSA claim must be remanded to obtain a medical opinion addressing both secondary service connection via aggravation of prostate cancer and the PACT Act's toxic-exposure presumption for herbicide exposure.

Claimed conditions

coronary artery disease (CAD), prostate cancer, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)

How they argued it

Direct service connection

Exposure basis

None

Rating assigned

None in this decision

Decision date

January 28, 2025

Citation

19167246

Want to see how appeals like this one tend to go? Appeals like mine