ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION

Summary

The Veteran, an Army veteran who served from November 1982 to November 1985, appeals the denial of service connection for erectile dysfunction. The Veteran claims this condition is secondary to his service-connected hypertension and back conditions, specifically due to medications taken for these conditions and physical difficulties with intimacy caused by pain from his back and neurological impairments. The Board found that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of erectile dysfunction, supported by February 2019 treatment records noting medication use and the Veteran's credible testimony at a December 2024 hearing. The Board also noted that the Veteran had to stop taking hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension due to its side effects, which included erectile dysfunction symptoms. The Veteran credibly testified that his service-connected degenerative arthritis of the spine and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy cause physical difficulty and pain during intimacy. The Board found the evidence in approximate balance, applying the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, and granted service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to his service-connected disabilities and their treatment.

Rationale

Veteran has a current diagnosis of erectile dysfunction.; Treatment records show Veteran was prescribed medication for erectile dysfunction.; Veteran credibly testified to diagnosis and symptoms.; Stopped hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension due to side effects including erectile dysfunction.; Service-connected back conditions and neurological impairments cause physical difficulty and pain with intimacy.; Evidence in approximate balance, benefit-of-the-doubt applied.; Erectile dysfunction is secondary to service-connected disabilities and their treatment.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26013253
Decision Date: 02/12/26	Archive Date: 02/12/26

DOCKET NO. 190713-461198
DATE: February 12, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for erectile dysfunction is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran has a current diagnosis of erectile dysfunction, which is due to or the result of his service-connected disabilities.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 1116(b), 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from November 1982 to November 1985.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2019 rating decision by a Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 

On the July 2019 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge.  A Board hearing was held by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2024.  A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file.

As an appeal in which the Veteran requested, on the Notice of Disagreement, a Board hearing, the Board's decision is based on a review of the evidence of record at the time of the decision on the issues on appeal, evidence submitted by the appellant or his representative at the hearing, to include testimony provided at the hearing, and evidence submitted by the appellant or his representative within 90 days following the hearing.  38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a).

1. Service connection for erectile dysfunction is granted.

The Veteran maintains that he suffers from erectile dysfunction that is related to his active service.  More specifically, the Veteran maintains that his erectile dysfunction is secondary to medication he takes for service-connected conditions, to include hypertension and medication to treat his back conditions and associated neurological abnormalities.  

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  See 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  A veteran seeking compensation under these provisions must establish three elements: "(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service."  Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

Secondary service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a) is warranted where a nonservice-connected disability would have been less severe but for a service-connected disability, either because there is an etiological link (to include worsening of functionality) between the two, or because the service-connected disability resulted in the inability to treat the non-service-connected disability.  Spicer v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ("Put together, § 1110 plainly requires compensation when a service-connected disease or injury is a but-for cause of a present-day disability.  This broad language applies to the natural progression of a condition not caused by a service-connected injury or disease, but that nonetheless would have been less severe were it not for the service-connected disability.  Stated another way, § 1110 provides for compensation for a worsening of functionality-whether through an inability to treat or a more direct, etiological cause.  Nothing in the statute limits § 1110 to onset or etiological causes of a worsening in functionality").

The rating decision on appeal found that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction.  However, February 2019 treatment records note that the Veteran was taking medication for erectile dysfunction.  The Veteran credibly testified before the undersigned to being diagnosed with and having symptoms associated with the condition.  Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran has a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. 

Furthermore, there is evidence in the record as early as 2019 that the Veteran had erectile dysfunction and was prescribed sildenafil for the same.  Moreover, treatment records 2020 reflect that the Veteran had to stop at least one medication, hydrochlorothiazide, that he was taking for
1110 to onset or etiological causes of a worsening in functionality").

The rating decision on appeal found that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction.  However, February 2019 treatment records note that the Veteran was taking medication for erectile dysfunction.  The Veteran credibly testified before the undersigned to being diagnosed with and having symptoms associated with the condition.  Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran has a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. 

Furthermore, there is evidence in the record as early as 2019 that the Veteran had erectile dysfunction and was prescribed sildenafil for the same.  Moreover, treatment records 2020 reflect that the Veteran had to stop at least one medication, hydrochlorothiazide, that he was taking for his service-connected hypertension because its side-effects included symptoms of erectile dysfunction.  See CAPRI records dated February 1, 2019, July 2020. 

Additionally, at his December 2024 Board hearing before the undersigned the Veteran also reported that his service-connected conditions of degenerative arthritis of the spine and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy make it physically difficult to be intimate with his spouse due to both the physical pain and the fear of experiencing physical pain. 

As a finder of fact, when considering whether lay evidence is satisfactory, the Board may also properly consider internal inconsistency of the statements, facial plausibility, consistency with other evidence submitted on behalf of the Veteran, and the Veteran's demeanor when testifying at a hearing.  See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 38 (2007); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

The Board notes the Veteran is competent to report the onset and recurrence of erectile dysfunction symptoms and finds the Veteran's testimony credible.  See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The Board finds that sufficient lay evidence has been provided showing a correlation between the Veteran's service-connected hypertension (to include medications taken for the disorder), service-connected back disabilities and associated neurological impairments and his erectile dysfunction.

After a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence is in approximate balance, and therefore the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is applicable, and the Veteran's erectile dysfunction is secondary to his service-connected disabilities, to specifically include medication to treat his service-connected disabilities.  See Lynch, 21 F.4th at 781.  Therefore, the Board finds that service connection for erectile dysfunction is warranted.   

 

STEVEN D. REISS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Woehlke, V.

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided.  This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.