Home › BVA Decisions › Reversals › Erectile Dysfunction

Erectile Dysfunction: From Board Denial to Court Reversal

The two-step reality of a erectile dysfunction appeal: what the Board does with these issues, and — when veterans appeal a denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims — the arguments that get Board denials set aside.

What this is computed from: 30,584 decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, identified inside a 39,330-document public court-decision corpus and summarized by machine analysis. Every docket number shown below was verified to appear in the court's published decision text in that corpus (112 verified; 0 candidate examples were dropped for failing verification). Selection effect: only Board decisions a veteran chose to appeal reach the Court — most Board denials are never appealed, so these rates describe appealed cases, not all denials. Data build: 2026-08-16.

Step 1 — Erectile Dysfunction at the Board

From our issue-level parse of 18,313 public Board decisions (dated 2026-01-02 to 2026-03-02; corpus ingest in progress):

Issues decided
412
Granted
20.1%
Denied
33.0%
Remanded
36.4%

Full Board-level tables: outcome rates by condition · judge statistics.

Step 2 — appealed denials at the Court

CAVC cases analyzed involving erectile dysfunction
781
Board decision disturbed
53.1% (415)

Arguments that won — verified dockets

CAVC docket 16-0646 · verified · denial type: no nexus

The Board failed to consider service connection under Persian Gulf War presumptions and the duty to assist required a medical nexus opinion for that theory.

CAVC docket 21-1298 · verified · denial type: credibility

Board failed to provide adequate reasons and bases for rejecting favorable evidence on diabetes rating

CAVC docket 19-6605 · verified · denial type: not new material

Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for some claims

CAVC docket 23-2469 · verified · denial type: duty to assist

The Board denied claims for skin, gastrointestinal, and psychiatric conditions without obtaining a medical examination to assess nexus, violating the duty to assist.

Argument summaries are machine-extracted from the cited public court decisions and lightly compressed; read the full decision by searching the docket number at CourtListener or the Court's own public search. A cited argument working in one record does not guarantee it fits another.

Is your denial built on reasoning that fails on appeal?

Upload your decision letter — the free analyzer maps its reasoning against these patterns and computes your exact deadlines, including CAVC's 120 days.

Analyze my denial free →