Ed Nexus

[Charleese]

Do you think this is a good nexus letter for ED:

In April 2009 his doctor wrote: "The clinical records from the VA clearly state that Mr. XXXX developed parotitis after visiting his brother in Virginia who had mumps."

"A short time thereafter, the clinical records document left orchitis and the patient developed left testicular atrophy, a well known potential complication of mumps. Mr. XXXX later developed impotence at a relativey young age. It is my medical opinion that the testicular atrophy caused by the mumps contributed to a premature testosterone deficiency and immpotence."

Vet wears a patch (Androderm) for low testosterone and takes Vardenafil.

Is this good enough to get ED service connected.

[Charleese]

Charleese,

Thanks - I now remember his recent grant.

What would be the nexus of his ED to active duty or a nexus to a

SC disability ?

The nexus would of been the mumps if they had SC him, but they denied him saying service treatment records did not document treatment for, or diagnosis of mumps while in service. This is not true because service clinical records form DD 481 proves he had the mumps while in service. This is what his doctor was saying in his nexus statements. SC clinical records state 0890 - Parotitis epidemic due to mumps; 6145 orchitis, acute, non venerial due to mumps. It also states that a claim for service connection requires evidence of a current disability, evidence of incurrence or aggravation of a disesse or injury in service, and evidence of a nexus, or link, between the inservice injury or disease and the current disability. If we can use the mumps we could claim testosterone deficiency as well as testicle disorder.

If we have to put in a new claim then We will try and link his cervical spinal cord condition since that is now SC. He had put in for his Lower Back but they have yet to rate that and now that he is 100% I doubt if they will rate him. Because that can be used as well.

Do you have any suggestions about this?

[carlie]

I think it would be in his best interest to not continue pushing

for more - especially for the issue of ED secondary to mumps that is not SC'd.

Many times it is in the claimants best interest to let some things go.

JMHO

[bakerkd]

How could you consider this service connected? I am lost. This has nothing to do with his military service. Geeze this is truly an example of how hard its getting out there. Does he have any other issues related to the military or caused by his service? Even if the military treated him for it while he was in service does not make it service connected. Def donot turn that letter in because if you read again it flat out says its not military related.

If it happened during military service and was not a result of misconduct it can be service connected. You do not have to be on duty performing your military function, you could break an ankle playing unit softball. It was already established that it was while on active duty (24/7) . The issue is that he was not service connected for mumps, yet there appears to be documentation that he was treated for mumps while inservice. Mumps doesn't cause infertility, orchitis (complication from mumps in adult males) does. Now it may be a case of no documentation of orchitis hence no service connection. I also contracted mumps while on active duty....its no joke...especially if you develop orchitis. The main reason was because I was stationed overseas and that country doesn't vaccinate for MMR. I didn't claim it but you can bet I would have it had made me infertile at age 20 or I had lost a testicle.

Complications

Potential complications of mumps include the following:

• Hearing loss
• Meningitis/encephalitis
• Orchitis
• Oophoritis
• Pancreatitis
• Polyneuritis
• Myocarditis
• Nephritis
• Arthritis
• Thyroiditis
• Thrombocytopenia purpura
• Mastitis
• Pneumonia
• Sensorineural deafness^[5]
• Transverse myelitis
• Cerebellar ataxia
• Keratouveitis

Edited June 13, 2011 by bakerkd

[Philip Rogers]

Sounds to me like he may have a valid claim. He could be entitled to an SMC "k" award plus another 10%. jmo

pr

[bakerkd]

Sounds to me like he may have a valid claim. He could be entitled to an SMC "k" award plus another 10%. jmo

pr

I just noticed that the vet was treated for orchitis and mumps while in service. Looks like a valid claim to me as well, have no idea why this wasn't sc'd

[Charleese]

I just noticed that the vet was treated for orchitis and mumps while in service. Looks like a valid claim to me as well, have no idea why this wasn't sc'd

Hi all thanks for your replies.

They denied him using evidence up to 2008. Dr. wrote this letter in 2009 which they VA has yet to recognize letter. Don't understand his VSO knowing about this letter and not pusing them to use it. But as I said before his VSO just goes along with anything VA say or do. That's why hubby gets me to do his claims. There is so many things that the BVA told RO in remand to do that they didn't do such as give him an exam for hypertensive heart, exam for lower back, exam for shoulders, etc. They were told to see if he required a brace and doctor in 2011 C&P stated that he requires a brace but VA denied his claim for brace even though they used 2011 C&P exam as evidence. It is just mind boggling.

Even though they have granted him TDIU, we believe we should NOD for ED, as well as for the brace claim and lower back claim as well as claim for hypertensive heart that they denied him without examing him.

Once again thanks alot for your replies.