The Board denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for hypertension as a result of treatment with prednisone at the VA Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana in August and September 2006.,The Board also denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for erectile dysfunction, vision disorder (glaucoma), peripheral vascular disease (arterial insufficiency and femoral artery bypass), and nerve damage lower extremities as secondary to hypertension.
The deciding factor: The medical evidence did not support the Veteran's claim that the treatment with prednisone caused an additional disability of hypertension, and it was determined that the erectile dysfunction, vision disorder (glaucoma), peripheral vascular disease, and nerve damage were caused by hypertension.
- Claimed conditions
- hypertension, erectile dysfunction, vision disorder (glaucoma), peripheral vascular disease (arterial insufficiency and femoral artery bypass), nerve damage lower extremities
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- September 22, 2023
- Citation
- 23052803
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 23052803.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for hypertension and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities due to insufficient medical opinions regarding their etiology.
- 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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including VA examinations.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for additional development due to conflicting opinions regarding service connection for peripheral neuropathy, hypertension, and skin disabilities related to herbicide exposure.
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.