ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION

HARVEY P. ROBERTS · 2026 · Case ID: A26037280

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran, who served from March 1967 to March 1970, appeals the denial of service connection for erectile dysfunction, claimed as secondary to service-connected hypertension and a low back disability. The Veteran believed that medications prescribed for these service-connected conditions caused the erectile dysfunction. The Board reviewed the evidence of record, including lay statements from the Veteran and VA medical opinions from June 2025. The VA examiner opined that the erectile dysfunction was not caused or aggravated by the service-connected conditions or their treatments, specifically noting that hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) and cyclobenzaprine would not cause erectile dysfunction. While the Veteran's lay statements suggested a belief in a medication-induced connection, the Board found these insufficient without medical corroboration. The Board gave greater weight to the VA examiner's opinions, which were based on medical knowledge and a review of the record, concluding that the evidence weighed against a secondary service connection. The Board denied the claim, finding no reasonable doubt to resolve in the Veteran's favor.

Rationale

Lay statements suggested medication-induced connection; Treatment records lacked notation of connection; VA examiner opined no causation/aggravation from service-connected conditions or medications

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250726-567754

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037280
Decision Date: 04/21/26 Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 250726-567754
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, secondary to service-connected hypertension and low back disabilities, is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's erectile dysfunction is not secondary to service-connected hypertension and low back disabilities.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for erectile dysfunction, secondary to service-connected hypertension and low back disabilities, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1967 to March 1970.

This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 2025 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In the July 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On January 13, 2026, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the June 2025 AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or the Veteran's representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider that evidence in this decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 20.801.

If the Veteran wants VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board cannot consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim, VA Form 20-0995, and submit or identify that evidence. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

The issue of service connection for erectile dysfunction was denied in a September 2024 rating. The Veteran appealed that decision to the Board, requesting a hearing. The Veteran testified before the Board at a February 2025 hearing. Subsequently, the Board remanded the claim to the AOJ for further development. Having complied with the Board's remand requests, the AOJ issued the June 2025 decision from which this appeal arises.

1. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, secondary to hypertension and low back disabilities

The Veteran contends that the Veteran erectile dysfunction is caused by medication taken to treat hypertension and a low back disability.

The Veteran has indicated repeatedly that the erectile dysfunction disability did not begin in service, but was caused by medication used to treat service-connected hypertension and a low back disability. Because the Veteran has not raised, and the record does not reasonably raise, entitlement to direct service connection, the Board's adjudication will consider only entitlement to secondary service connection.

Service connection may be established for a disability that is due to, or aggravated by, service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

The question for the Board is whether diagnosed erectile dysfunction is due to or the result of, or was aggravated by service-connected hypertension and a low back disability, to include medications used to treat those disabilities.

The Veteran has provided lay evidence indicating the Veteran's belief that erectile dysfunction was caused by either muscle relaxation medication provided to treat a service-connected low back disability or hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) prescribed to treat service-connected hypertension.

The treatment records for the period under review indicated that the Veteran had a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction. However, the treatment records did not contain any notations indicating that erectile dysfunction was caused or aggravated by service-connected hypertension and a low back disability, to include medications taken to treat those disabilities.

In a June 2025 VA medical opinion, a VA examiner, having reviewed the record of evidence, opined that the erectile dysfunction disability was not caused or aggravated by the service-connected disabilities. In explaining the opinion, the examiner reported finding no objective evidence that the erectile dysfunction was aggravated by the service-connected disabilities, to include due to side effects from medication taken for a service
iazide (HCTZ) prescribed to treat service-connected hypertension.

In an additional June 2025 VA medical opinion, the same VA examiner again opined that the erectile dysfunction disability was not caused or aggravated by the service-connected disabilities. The examiner noted that treatment for hypertension could be associated with the development of erectile dysfunction. However, based on medical research and the examiner's own medical knowledge, the examiner indicated that the usage of HCTZ would not result in erectile dysfunction. Moreover, the examiner noted that the use of cyclobenzaprine and ibuprofen would not create a risk of developing erectile dysfunction. Considering the VA examiner's review of the evidence, the Board finds that the VA examiner's opinions have great probative value in this matter. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008).

The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current erectile dysfunction disability, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's erectile dysfunction is due to or the result of, or aggravated by the service-connected hypertension and low back disabilities. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995) (en banc); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). The Veteran provided statements indicating the Veteran's belief that medication taken to treat the service-connected disabilities caused erectile dysfunction. However, the medical evidence of record did not contain any notations suggesting such a connection. Moreover, in the June 2025 VA medical opinions, a VA examiner, having reviewed the record, opined that the disabilities were not related to the medications taken to treat the service-connected disabilities. The examiner noted each medication taken for those disabilities and explained how, based on research and the examiner's own medical knowledge, the medications would not cause erectile dysfunction. Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence for the period under review weighed against the claim on appeal.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran believes that diagnosed erectile dysfunction disability was caused by the medications provided to treat service-connected disabilities. However, the Veteran is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of medications and their effects on the genitourinary systems. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case, because the record does not show that the Veteran has medical training to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the VA medical opinions of record which were written by a medical professional.

Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence weighed against the claim and there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in the Veteran's favor. The Board finds that the evidence is not in approximate balance and that there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in favor of the Veteran. Therefore, the clam for service connection must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107.

Harvey P. Roberts

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board T.M. Gillett, Counsel

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer