|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Basic Training |
I have been in contact with Senator John McCain's office in Tempe, Az. I had him working on my case of Parkinson and Agent Orange, but have informed them that I would like to attack this as a group. I was told by Jeff from that office that a new case would have to be open. So I told him that I would send him a list of names who are interested in this fight. Anyone interested in getting on the list please conact me with name and address.
I also have Senator Amy Klobuchar's office in Minnesota working on it. Anyone that wants to use her office can contact me or send their information to: Zach Rodvold Office of Sen. Amy Klobuchar Bishop Henry Whipple Building 1 Federal Drive, Suite 298 Fort Snelling, MN 55111 612-727-5220 (phone) / 612-727-5223 (fax) http://klobuchar.senate.gov Mayo Clinic in Rochester Wednesday, June 14, 2006 Study Concludes that Pesticide Use Increases Risk of Parkinson's in Men Additional Resources For appointments or more information, call the Central Appointment Office at 507-284-2111. Other Web Resource: Patient's Guide Journalists: For more information, contact: Lisa Lucier 507-284-5005 (days) 507-284-2511 (evenings) newsbureau@mayo.edu ROCHESTER, Minn.--Mayo Clinic researchers have found that using pesticides for farming or other purposes increases the risk of developing Parkinson's disease for men. Pesticide exposure did not increase the risk of Parkinson's in women, and no other household or industrial chemicals were significantly linked to the disease in either men or women. Findings will be published in the June issue of the journal Movement Disorders. "This confirms what has been found in previous studies: that occupational or other exposure to herbicides, insecticides and other pesticides increases risk for Parkinson's," says Jim Maraganore, M.D., Mayo Clinic neurologist and study investigator. "What we think may be happening is that pesticide use combines with other risk factors in men's environment or genetic makeup, causing them to cross over the threshold into developing the disease. By contrast, estrogen may protect women from the toxic effects of pesticides." The investigators identified all those in Olmsted County, Minn., home of Mayo Clinic, who had developed Parkinson's disease between 1976 and 1995. Each person with Parkinson's disease was matched for comparison to someone similar in age and gender who did not have the disease. The researchers conducted telephone interviews with 149 of those with Parkinson's and 129 of those who did not have the disease, or a proxy for these people, to assess exposure to chemical products via farming occupation, non-farming occupation or hobbies. The investigators were unable to determine through these interviews the exact exposure levels of these individuals or the cumulative lifetime exposure to pesticides. Overall, the study found that the men with Parkinson's were 2.4 times more likely to have had exposure to pesticides than those who did not have Parkinson's. Women who had Parkinson's, on the other hand, had a far lower frequency of exposure to pesticides than men with the disease. This study was undertaken due to conflicting results from previous studies of pesticides and other chemical products and risk for Parkinson's. Funding for the study is from two grants from the National Institutes of Health. The medical-records linkage system of the Rochester Epidemiology Project also made this study possible. Semper Fi, Steve |
||
|
|
"Has Been 5" Lead Moderator Sound Off Forums  |
Thanks Steve, a very valuable post with outstanding information. Hopefully all veteran's with Parkinson's disease will co-operate by posting on this topic. This is an opportunity for the Vietnam veteran and Korea DMZ ('68-'69) to get attention to a severe neurological disorder which is long over due.
This has been an issue with me since 1983 and VA has never developed this issue as herbicide related. The time is now! |
|||
|
|
"Has Been 5" Lead Moderator Sound Off Forums |
Although we have a topic on Agent Orange Discussion Boards Agent Orange & Parkinson, this particular topic is to entice those who have Parkinson's and were exposed to herbicides containing TCDD, to become active in the inquiry. According to all I have heard, the current Secretary of the VA, has not asked for furthur review of Agent Orange residual conditions. Without the Secretary of the VA making the request, AO studies will not continue.
________________________________________________ Here is a letter to me regarding the last VAO Update 2004 (2005) A copy of an e-mail to me Posted Mon 28 March 2005 12:52 AM: Dear Mr. Barker, Dr. Catlin forwarded me your message, becauseI have recently taken over responsibility for IOM's on-going reviews of scientific literature related to health effects and herbicide exposure from her. The prepublication version of Update 2004 was delivered to VA at the beginning of this month. We have exhausted our supply of printed copies, but it is posted for viewing on our website (http://veterans.iom.edu). If you follow that web site's link to Vietnam War, at the head of the list of studies, you will see this most recent report. If you click on the book cover, you will go to a summary. If you click again on "Read and Purchase," you can scan the final draft of the report. The final bound books should be available in June. Although Update 2004 did not result in any new health conditions being added to the list of those with enough ("limited or suggestive" or "sufficient") evidence available to support an association with exposure to the herbicides used in Vietnam, I hope the committee's clarification (p. 368) that Type 2 diabetes may require insulin (as you noted at their meeting in Columbus) will be of use to some of the veterans you represent. Sincerely, Mary Paxton ________________________________________________ The Agent Orange & Parkinson link http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/739197221/m/6150057511001 |
|||
|
|
Basic Training |
I really don't understand why the Secretary fo the VA has to open anything up.
With the rulings below we all with Parkinson should be entiled to a claim with the VA. Citation Nr: 0515609 Decision Date: 06/09/05 Archive Date: 06/21/05 DOCKET NO. 02-22 169 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston- Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's disease, to include as a result of exposure to an herbicide agent. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Sharon A. Hatton, Attorney at Law ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Pomeranz, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant had active military service from July 1970 to April 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 2002 rating action by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) located in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. FINDING OF FACT The appellant's Parkinson's disease is related to his in- service herbicide exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW Parkinson's disease was incurred in active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2004). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION I. Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 In November 2000, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) was signed into law. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (West 2002). Regulations implementing the VCAA are applicable to the appellant's claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326 (2004). With respect to VA's duty to notify, the RO sent the appellant a letter in May 2002, prior to the initial rating decision with regard to the issue on appeal, in which the appellant was notified of the types of evidence he needed to submit, and the development the VA would undertake. See Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). The letter specifically informed the appellant what was needed from him and what VA would obtain on his behalf. Id. The appellant was also informed of the elements needed to substantiate a service connection claim, including requirements specific to Agent Orange claims. In addition, the Board observes that the October 2002 statement of the case provided the appellant with the text of the relevant portions of the VCAA, as well as the implementing regulations. The Board further notes that there is no indication that there is additional evidence that has not been obtained and that would be pertinent to the present claim. The appellant has been notified of the applicable laws and regulations pertinent to his service connection claim. Moreover, the appellant has been afforded the opportunity to present evidence and argument in support of the claim. Id. Thus, VA's duty to notify has been fulfilled. VA also has a duty to assist the appellant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). The duty to assist includes providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such is necessary to make a decision on the claim. In this regard, the Board notes that in August 2004, the appellant underwent a VA examination which was pertinent to his service connection claim. In addition, in February 2004, the Board referred this case for a medical opinion from a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) physician. The Board further observes that in this case, there is no outstanding evidence to be obtained, either by VA or the appellant. Consequently, given the standard of the new regulation, the Board finds that VA did not have a duty to assist that was unmet. The Board also finds, in light of the above, that the facts relevant to this appeal have been fully developed and there is no further action to be undertaken to comply with the provisions of the regulations implementing the VCAA. Therefore, and in light of the decision herein, the appellant will not be prejudiced as a result of the Board proceeding to the merits of the claim. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 392-94 (1993); see also Mayfield v. Nicholson, No. 02- 1077 (U.S. Vet.App. April 14, 2005). II. Factual Background The appellant's DD 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, shows that he served in the United States Army from July 1970 to April 1972. The appellant's DD 214 also reflects that he served in the Republic of Vietnam from July 1971 to March 1972. The appellant's service medical records are negative for any complaints or findings of Parkinson's disease. The records show that in March 1972, the appellant underwent a separation examination. At that time, the appellant was clinically evaluated as "normal" for neurologic purposes. In March 2002, the appellant filed a claim for entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's disease. At that time, he maintained that his currently diagnosed Parkinson's disease was due to his exposure to Agent Orange while he was serving in the Republic of Vietnam. In June 2002, the RO received private medical records, from February 2000 to June 2001. The records show that in March 2001, the appellant sought treatment from Valerie A. Lasko, M.D., for complaints of a tremor. At that time, Dr. Lasko noted that according to the appellant, he first noticed his tremor in approximately January 2000. When asked about exposure to heavy metals, the appellant reported extensive involvement with lead while working in a remodeling and restoration business. The appellant also stated that he had used pesticides extensively. The assessment was Parkinson's disease and Dr. Lasko indicated that in light of the appellant's history of metal exposure, she would request a heavy metal screen. The records reflect that in June 2001, Dr. Lasko reported that the appellant's heavy metal screen from March 2001 was within normal limits. A private medical statement from Ellis F. Muther, M.D., dated in June 2002, shows that at that time, Dr. Muther stated that the appellant had a two-year history of Parkinson's disease. According to Dr. Muther, no explanation for the appellant's disorder had been found "except a possible exposure to Agent Orange." Dr. Muther indicated that Agent Orange had been demonstrated to be a neurotoxin, and, as such, he opined that it was highly possible that that was a contributing factor in the etiology of the appellant's Parkinson's disease. In Fast Letter 03-20, issued by the Veterans Benefits Administration on June 25, 2003, it was noted that a study by the National Academy of Sciences found that the credible evidence against an association between herbicide exposure and Parkinson's disease outweighed the credible evidence for such an association. In December 2003, the Board remanded this case and requested that the appellant be afforded a VA neurological examination to determine the etiology of any Parkinson's disease found. As per the Board's December 2003 remand decision, in August 2004, the appellant underwent a VA examination. Following the physical examination and a review of the appellant's claims file, the examiner diagnosed the appellant with Parkinson's disease, with a predominant tremor. The examiner noted that in private medical records from Dr. Lasko, Dr. Lasko had referred to the appellant's occupation of remodeling rental homes and the possibility that the appellant was exposed to lead based paints. However, the examiner reported that the appellant's heavy metal screens came back negative which meant that that could be "safely eliminated" as a cause of the appellant's Parkinson's disease. Next, in order to answer the question as to whether Agent Orange caused the appellant's Parkinson's disease, the examiner noted that an extensive three-day literature review was conducted. The examiner listed numerous medical articles which addressed the relationship between herbicide agents and neurological disorders, including Parkinson's disease. Following a review of the medical literature obtained, the examiner opined that it was at least as likely as not that the appellant's Parkinson's disease may be related to exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicide exposure in Vietnam. A private medical statement from Joel C. Morgenlander, M.D., Associate Professor of Medicine (Neurology), dated in October 2004, shows that at that time, Dr. Morgenlander stated that he had first seen the appellant in October 2001 and had diagnosed him with probable Parkinson's disease. According to Dr. Morgenlander, the appellant's symptoms began in approximately 2000 or 2001. In February 2004, the Board referred this case for a medical opinion from a VHA medical doctor with the necessary expertise in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. The Board noted that due to the appellant's service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era, he was presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, during his period of active military service. Thus, the Board requested that the VHA physician, after reviewing the appellant's claims file, offer an opinion with respect to the following question: Whether it was at least as likely as not that the appellant's Parkinson's disease was related to his period of military service, to specifically include his presumed exposure to herbicide, including Agent Orange, while in Vietnam. A VHA opinion from the Chief, Neurology Service, was provided on March 30, 2005. In the opinion, the VHA neurologist stated that the 2002 Update "Veterans and Agent Orange" published by the Institute of Medicine summarized several epidemiologic studies, most of which suggested a mildly increased risk of Parkinson's disease in individuals "with many years of occupational exposure" to herbicides or pesticides. According to the VHA neurologist, no particular association had been demonstrated for any single chemical or class of compounds, and no association with exposure to "2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, or TCDD" had been published. The VHA neurologist stated that the Institute of Medicine concluded that although an etiologic connection between pesticide/herbicide exposure was "biologically plausible," there was insufficient evidence at present to support a definite association between Parkinson's disease and "2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, or TCDD." According to the VHA neurologist, to his knowledge, since the 2002 Update from the Institute of Medicine, there had been no more recent epidemiologic or biochemical studies indicating a definite association between Parkinson's disease and "2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, or TCDD." Thus, in reviewing the appellant's medical records, the VHA neurologist stated that he did not find any details of the appellant's particular military service or of his neurologic condition to lead to any conclusion different from that of the Institute of Medicine, namely that there was no definite etiologic link between Agent Orange exposure and subsequent Parkinson's disease. III. Analysis The law provides that service connection may be established for chronic disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In addition, service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The Board notes that a change in the law has taken place with respect to the adjudication of claims based upon exposure to Agent Orange during service in Vietnam. On December 27, 2001, the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001 (VEBEA), Pub. L. No. 107-113, 115 Stat. 976 (2001) was signed into law. That new statute, in pertinent part, redesignated and amended 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(f) to provide that, for purposes of establishing service connection for a disability or death resulting from exposure to an herbicide agent, including a presumption of service connection under this section, a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent of the kind specified in section 1116, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116 (West 2002). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, the following diseases shall be service-connected if the requirements of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) are met, even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided further that the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1113 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied: chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne; type II diabetes mellitus; Hodgkin's disease; multiple myeloma; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy; porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT); prostate cancer; respiratory cancers (cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea); and soft-tissue sarcomas (other than osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, Kaposi's sarcoma, or mesothelioma). 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2004); see also 38 U.S.C.A. § 1113 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (2004). VA has determined that a presumption of service connection based on exposure to herbicides used in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era is not warranted for any condition for which VA has not specifically determined a presumption of service connection is warranted. See 59 Fed. Reg. 341-46 (1994); 61 Fed. Reg. 414421 (1996); see also 64 Fed. Reg. 59232 (1999); 67 Fed. Reg. 42600-42608 (2002). More recently, VA clarified that a presumption of service connection based on exposure to herbicides used in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam Era is not warranted for the following conditions: hepatobiliary cancers, nasopharyngeal cancer, bone and joint cancer, breast cancer, cancers of the female reproductive system, urinary bladder cancer, renal cancer, testicular cancer, leukemia (other than CLL), abnormal sperm parameters and infertility, Parkinson's disease and parkinsonism, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), chronic persistent peripheral neuropathy, lipid and lipoprotein disorders, gastrointestinal and digestive disease, immune system disorders, circulatory disorders, respiratory disorders (other than certain respiratory cancers), skin cancer, cognitive and neuropsychiatric effects, gastrointestinal tract tumors, brain tumors, light chain-associated (AL) amyloidosis, endometriosis, adverse effects on thyroid homeostasis, and any other condition for which the Secretary has not specifically determined a presumption of service connection is warranted. See 68 Fed. Reg. 27,630-41 (May 20, 2003). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that the Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards (Radiation Compensation) Act, Pub. L. No. 98-542, § 5, 98 Stat. 2724, 2727- 29 (1984), does not preclude a veteran from establishing service connection with proof of actual direct causation. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed.Cir. 1994). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has specifically held that the provisions of Combee are applicable in cases involving Agent Orange exposure. McCartt v. West, 12 Vet. App. 164, 167 (1999). Following consideration of the evidence of record, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's disease is warranted. Initially, it is noted that the appellant's DD 214 confirms that the appellant had active service in Vietnam during the Vietnam era. Therefore, the appellant is presumed to have been exposed to herbicides in service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(f). However, the Board also observes that Parkinson's disease is not among the disabilities listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Thus, the appellant may not receive the benefit of a rebuttable presumption that his Parkinson's disease was caused by exposure to Agent Orange. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (2004). Nevertheless, as indicated above, the appellant is not precluded from establishing service connection on a direct basis. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed.Cir. 1994); McCartt v. West, 12 Vet. App. 164, 167 (1999). Upon a review of the evidence of record, the evidence taken as a whole tends toward the conclusion that the appellant's Parkinson's disease was caused by his herbicide exposure while in service. The Board recognizes that, as previously stated, in Fast Letter 03-20, issued by the Veterans Benefits Administration on June 25, 2003, it was noted that a study by the National Academy of Sciences study found that the credible evidence against an association between herbicide exposure and Parkinson's disease outweighed the credible evidence for such an association. However, in support of the appellant's contention that his Parkinson's disease was due to his exposure to Agent Orange while he was serving in the Republic of Vietnam, the appellant has submitted a private medical statement from Dr. Muther, dated in June 2002. In the June 2002 statement, Dr. Muther indicated that no explanation for the appellant's diagnosed Parkinson's disease had been found "except a possible exposure to Agent Orange." Dr. Muther further noted that Agent Orange had been demonstrated to be a neurotoxin, and, as such, he opined that it was highly possible that that was a contributing factor in the etiology of the appellant's Parkinson's disease. In addition, in the appellant's August 2004 VA examination, the examiner stated that although it was possible that the appellant was exposed to lead based paints due to his occupation of remodeling rental homes, in light of the fact that the appellant's heavy metal screens came back negative, such exposure could be "safely eliminated" as a cause of the appellant's Parkinson's disease. Moreover, following a review of pertinent medical literature, the examiner opined that it was "at least as likely as not" that the appellant's Parkinson's disease may be related to exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicide exposure in Vietnam. Furthermore, in the March 2005 opinion from the VHA neurologist, although he stated that his conclusion was no different from that of the Institute of Medicine, namely that there was no definite etiologic link between Agent Orange exposure and subsequent Parkinson's disease, the VHA neurologist also noted that the Institute of Medicine had concluded that an etiologic connection between pesticide/herbicide exposure was "biologically plausible." The medical opinions in this case are less than absolute in their conclusions. However, given the nature of cases such as this one, in which most causes of the claimed disability are idiopathic and the passage of a significant amount of time between separation from service and the filing of a claim with VA, and the fact that medicine is still a somewhat inexact science, the Board must resign itself to dealing with medical opinion evidence couched in terms such as "highly possible," "at least as likely as not," and "biologically plausible," rather than absolutes. See Lathan v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 359, 366 (1995) (medicine is more art than exact science). Although none of the medical opinions of record are couched in terms of absolute certainty, none have to be. In any event, the standard of review which must be applied by the Board is found in 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b). Under the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, in order for a claimant to prevail, there need not be a preponderance of the evidence in the veteran's favor, but only an approximate balance of the positive and negative evidence. In other words, the preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim for the benefit to be denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54 (1990). Thus, in consideration of the aforementioned evidence, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the appellant's claim for service connection for Parkinson's disease is in a state of relative equipoise. With reasonable doubt resolved in the appellant's favor, the Board concludes that service connection is warranted. ORDER Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's disease is granted. ____________________________________________ JOY A. MCDONALD Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs Citation Nr: 0519813 Decision Date: 07/21/05 Archive Date: 08/03/05 DOCKET NO. 94-37 191 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a neurological disorder, claimed as due to in-service herbicide exposure. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran and his son. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Cryan, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from June 1966 to October 1969, with approximately four months of additional prior service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 1994 rating decision of the RO, which denied the veteran's claim seeking entitlement to service connection for a neurological disorder, claimed as peripheral neuropathy, due to alleged exposure to Agent Orange while in Vietnam. The veteran submitted a notice of disagreement with that rating decision in May 1994. In July 1994, he was provided with a statement of the case. His substantive appeal was received in September 1994. The Board notes that the veteran had previously claimed entitlement to service connection for a neurological disorder, claimed as Parkinson's disease, due to alleged exposure to Agent Orange while in Vietnam, which was denied by an October 1988 rating decision. The veteran submitted a notice of disagreement with that rating decision in January 1989. In February 1989, he was provided with a statement of the case. His substantive appeal was received in March 1989. The matter was received at the Board in October 1989 but was referred back to the RO pending review and revision of herbicide regulations. The RO then also deferred a decision on the claim pending updated proposed regulations. As noted in a June 1999 remand by the Board, the RO, in the currently appealed March 1994 rating decision essentially considered both the claimed peripheral neuropathy and the claimed Parkinson's disease. Given that the veteran has claimed service connection for a neurological disorder, initially claimed as Parkinson's disease and subsequently claimed as peripheral neuropathy, and given that the veteran's claims were essentially one continuous claim for the same neurological disorder, the Board has simply characterized the veteran's claim as entitlement to service connection for a neurological disorder, claimed as due to Agent Orange exposure. The issue has been so identified on the title page hereinabove. The veteran testified at a personal hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, sitting at the RO in September 1997. A transcript of his testimony is associated with the claims file. Finally, it is noted that the case was previously twice before the Board and was remanded to the RO in January 1998 and June 1999 for additional evidentiary development. Following compliance with the Board's directives on Remand, the case is now returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran had active military service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era, and is therefore presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents in service. 2. The veteran has a currently diagnosed neurological disorder with Parkinson-like characteristics, also referred to as Parkinsonism. 3. The veteran's neurological disorder may not be presumptively service connected under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). 4. The competent and probative medical opinions of record have determined that the veteran's currently diagnosed neurological disorder is at least as likely as not due to in- service exposure to Agent Orange. CONCLUSION OF LAW With resolution of all doubt in the veteran's favor, the veteran's currently diagnosed neurological disorder, referred to as Parkinsonism and Parkinson-like syndrome, was incurred in service as a result of in-service herbicide exposure in Vietnam. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303 3.304 (2004). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The veteran asserts that service connection is warranted for his neurological disorder with symptomatology which mirrors that of Parkinson's disease, which he claims is due to in- service herbicide exposure in the Republic of Vietnam. I. Duties to Notify and Assist At the outset, the Board notes that on November 9, 2000, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) was enacted. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002). Among other things, the VCAA amended 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103 to clarify VA's duty to notify claimants and their representatives of any information and evidence that is necessary to substantiate the claim for benefits. The VCAA also created 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A, which codifies VA's duty to assist, and essentially states that VA will make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim. Implementing regulations for the VCAA were subsequently enacted, which were also made effective November 9, 2000, for the most part. See 66 Fed. Reg. 45,620 (Aug. 29, 2001) (codified at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159). The intended effect of the implementing regulations was to establish clear guidelines consistent with the intent of Congress regarding the timing and scope of assistance VA will provide to claimants who file a claim for benefits. See 66 Fed. Reg. 45,620 (Aug. 29, 2001). Both the VCAA and the implementing regulations are applicable in the present case, and will be collectively referred to as "the VCAA." Pertinent to the merits of the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a neurological disorder, the Board finds that the provisions of the VCAA have been complied with. In light of the complete grant of benefits sought on appeal (entitlement to service connection for a neurological disorder), no further evidence is necessary to substantiate the veteran's claim for service connection. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 2002). In this veteran's case, there is no reasonable possibility that further assistance would aid in substantiating the claim for VA compensation benefits. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(a)(1),(2) (West 2002). Also, further notice to the veteran concerning the evidence necessary to substantiate his claim or regarding responsibilities in obtaining evidence would serve no useful purpose. II. Factual Background The veteran's service medical records are negative for complaints, findings, or diagnosis of a neurological disorder of any kind. A review of the post-service evidentiary record reveals numerous medical records clearly indicating that the veteran has been diagnosed with a neurological disorder, although there has been some degree of variance in the precise nature of that diagnosis. A September 1982 private neurology consultation report prepared by Dr. K, indicated that the veteran was experiencing progressive weakness of the left side of the body and noted that he had a history of having polio of the left arm and left leg when he was age 22 months. There was also a history of having served two tours of duty in Vietnam. Other numerous subsequent private medical records from the neurological offices of Dr. L as well as from a Duke University Medical Center doctor indicated that the veteran began experiencing left sided numbness in 1982 and there are several diagnoses of Parkinsonism shown from 1983. At one time, it was thought that the veteran's neurological symptoms could be attributed to basal ganglia disease. Other doctors noted that the veteran may not have a pure form of Parkinsonism, but instead, a Parkinson-plus syndrome such as a progressive supranuclear palsy. The veteran underwent a VA neurological examination in July 1988, and he gave a history of having been exposed to dioxins in service. The veteran reported symptoms to include slowness of movement, muscle stiffness, poor coordination, slurred speech, excessive salivation, muscle twitching, muscle cramps, tremor, and involuntary movements. The examiner noted that the veteran had many features of Parkinson's Disease, but noted that his picture was unusual. First, the examiner pointed out that the veteran was young. Next, the examiner noted that he could never see the true resting tremor, and muscle tone was not significantly increased on testing. On the other hand, he showed a lot of the variability of muscle function that one did see in Parkinsonism, and he could never convince himself that the veteran was functional. Therefore, the examiner diagnosed a neurological problem that was similar to Parkinson's and may be a variety of such. He further stated that he was not aware of the veteran's picture being seen with dioxin exposure, but would defer that question to those with more knowledge in that field. Amongst other medical evidence of record is a July 1990 letter from Dr. R, a PhD and toxicologist, with the State of North Carolina, Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Epidemiology. Dr. R referred to various scientific literature indicating a possible relationship between dioxin exposure and various neurological disorders, indicating that one cannot rule out the possible role of dioxin as a causal agent for various neurological disorders, including Parkinson's disease. Dr. R noted that recent scientific literature had brought to light the possibility of environmental causes of neurological disorders, as opposed to genetic causes, and that this may be the reason why more young people were developing that disease. Also of record is a report of Dr. R, dated February 1991 and titled "[veteran's name] - A Possible Association Between His Current Medical Problems and Exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam." This 21 page report, plus attached appendices, contained references to numerous scientific studies and literature discussing potential neurological health effects of dioxin exposure. Dr. R further indicated that it did not appear that the veteran had true Parkinson's but instead had Parkinson like symptoms and based upon an evaluation of scientific literature, Dr. R stated that it was possible, indeed quite probable, that the veteran's condition may stem from past Agent Orange exposure. It is noted that Dr. R's opinion was based upon the veteran's history of having been stationed in Dong Ha and Quang Tri and having been subject to significant amounts of Agent Orange spraying in those areas. Dr. R elsewhere stated that the veteran "was in an area that was subject to extensive Agent Orange treatment and exposure for an extended period of time." In December 1991, Dr. L prepared a memorandum in which he notes that the sum total of all of the information provided by Dr. R's report suggested an association between the veteran's exposure to dioxin and possible development of neurological symptoms. At his personal hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in September 1997, the veteran testified that he was in good health at the time he was discharged from service. The veteran testified that he could find no family history of a neurological disorder, and that he had never had any kind of traumatic injuries that may have stimulated a central nervous system dysfunction. Furthermore, the veteran testified that he never worked in any type of environment where he was exposed to excessive chemicals. Following the Board's January 1998 Remand, the veteran underwent a VA neurological examination in September 1998. It was noted that the veteran was in a wheelchair due to an inability to control his movements, especially on the left. Movements of his face were symmetric but limited in excursion. He could move his tongue perhaps half of the normal range. He was constantly writhing. He had normal strength in the deltoids, triceps and biceps, but the testing was interrupted by constant twisting, as severe as the examiner had seen in many years. The examiner found it interesting that sensation was within normal limits, including superficial sensation, traced figures, and vibration in four extremities, and joint sense in the lower extremities. The provided a history of dioxin exposure in service. The diagnosis was that of chronic severe generalized choreoathetosis with preserved reflexes, strength, sensation, and intellect. The examiner specifically found that this was not an acute or sub-acute peripheral neuropathy. It was also stated that there was a moderate to strong possibility that the veteran's bizarre movements were a result of exposure to some chemical during his service. In the June 1999 remand, the Board pointed out that the aforementioned report of Dr. R and the most recent VA examination provided clear medical evidence of a current diagnosis of a neurological disorder, and further supported a nexus between the current diagnosis and chemical exposure in service, more specifically dioxin exposure. However, at the time of the June 1999 remand, VA laws and regulations did not permit a presumption of exposure to Agent Orange based solely on having served in-country during the Vietnam Era. As such, the case was remanded for development, specifically to determine if the veteran was likely exposed to Agent Orange during service in Vietnam. In the meantime, it was confirmed that the veteran served in Vietnam from April 28, 1967 to December 3, 1967 and from June 26, 1969 to September 26, 1969. In March 2001, the case was referred to the VA Under Secretary for Health for review and preparation of a medical opinion. In response, VA's Chief Public Health and Environmental Hazards Officer first noted that the veteran had documented exposure to herbicides based on Department of Defense records of Agent Orange spraying. The opinion also noted that in its most recent report, Veterans and Agent Orange Update 1998, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee concluded that there was inadequate/insufficient evidence to determine whether an association exists between exposure used in Vietnam and motor/coordination dysfunction. Parkinson's Disease was included in this group of disorders by the IOM. In light of the foregoing, the Chief Public Health and Environmental Hazards Officer opined that it was possible that the veteran's neurological disorder could be attributed to exposure to herbicides; however, she could not state that Agent Orange exposure was likely or at least as likely as not to be responsible. In response to the opinion from the Under Secretary of Health, the RO opined, as a result of the opinion by the Under Secretary, and following review of the evidence in its entirety, the veteran's disability was not the result of Agent Orange exposure. In a December 2001 memorandum, Dr. G, of the Washington Hospital Center, noted a possible etiology of the veteran's neurological disorder. Dr. G noted the veteran's history of Parkinson-like symptoms, Parkinsonism, and the lack of a clearly defined neurological syndrome dating back to 1982. Dr. G noted that the initial medical evaluations of the veteran's condition performed by several neurologists seemed to be suggestive of a neurological syndrome that had some similarities to Parkinson's disease, but in some respects was quite different. Dr. G found that such a neurological condition, initially diagnosed at a young age raised several questions concerning a possible etiology. Dr. G found that the significant evidence provided by Dr. R strongly suggested that the offending agent may have been dioxin found in Agent Orange preparation. Dr. G found that Dr. R's research in that subject provided overwhelming support of a probable nexus between exposure to those compounds and the manifestations of acute and chronic neurological damage as well as the myriad symptoms experienced by the veteran. In conclusion, Dr. G opined that it was as likely as not that the highly unusual symptomatology observed in the veteran at an extremely young age was related to his exposures during service. In response to Dr. G's medical opinion, the Chief Officer of the Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards prepared another opinion, in March 2002, regarding the possible etiology of the veteran's neurological disorder. The opinion noted that the most recent report from the National Academy of Sciences "Veterans and Agent Orange- Update 2000" reaffirmed their earlier conclusions on the lack of an association between herbicide exposure and Parkinson's or related neurological diseases. It was noted that the National Academy of Sciences further stated that in the future, as diagnostic accuracy for Parkinson's disease improved, and when herbicide exposure assessment is quantitated with specific biomarkers, and further research confirms the gene-toxicant interaction in larger prospective studies of Parkinson's disease, the evidence for association may change. The Chief Officer of the Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards found, in essence, that Dr. R's 1991 opinion was outdated, and not supported by National Academy of Sciences current review of medical and scientific evidence. It was noted that VA relied extensively upon the independent and highly credible medical and scientific analysis provided by the NAS in establishing associations between herbicide exposure and health effects in veterans. Therefore, she again opined that it was possible that the Parkinson's or Parkinson's-like disease diagnosed in the veteran could be related to exposure to herbicide in service. However, they could not state that it was as likely, or more likely than not, that his disease was the result of herbicide exposure. In light of the aforementioned March 2002 opinion, the RO found that there was no reasonable possibility that the veteran's Parkinson's or Parkinson's-like disease resulted from exposure to herbicides in service. After the case was returned to the Board, the Board determined that an Independent Medical Opinion might be useful in determining the likely etiology of the veteran's neurological disability. In the meantime, both Dr. R and Dr. G responded to the March 2002 opinion by the Under Secretary of Health. Dr. R provided a lengthy report nearly 25 pages long noting a more likely than not association between the veteran's current medical problem and exposure to Agent Orange during service in Vietnam. In essence, the report finds an environmental link to Parkinson-like symptoms illustrated by numerous physicians in medical and scientific literature cited to by Dr. R in his report. Moreover, Dr. R noted that the National Academy of Sciences, in their report "Veterans and Agent Orange-Update 2002, were in general agreement with the information presented in his report. Dr. R concluded that because the evidence shows that the veteran was directly exposed to Agent Orange, and because the new medical peer- reviewed literature evidence presented in the report and the strength of the individual epidemiological studies relating the veteran's exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam, it was more likely than not that the Vietnam exposure to Agent Orange is responsible for his present medical condition; and that the new and existing information in the report, more likely than not links the veteran's Agent Orange exposure to his current neurological problems. In a January 2005 response to the Board's request for an independent medical opinion, a doctor from the Washington University School of Medicine noted that he reviewed the medical record and did not feel that he could render an opinion regarding the relationship between the veteran's exposure to Agent Orange and his Parkinsonion syndrome with the available information. The doctor noted that he would have to perform a history and examination of the veteran to determine the likely cause of his Parkinsonism. Dr. G noted that the evidence indicated that the veteran was exposed to Agent Orange during service, and also noted Dr. R's more recent medical data supporting a strong association between dioxins and subsequent manifestations of acute and chronic neurological damage as well as the myriad symptoms experienced by the veteran. Dr. G therefore concluded that the additional data gave further support to the case, and opined that it was as likely as not that the highly unusual symptomatology observed in the veteran at an extremely young age is related to his Agent Orange exposure during service. III. Legal Criteria and Analysis Under the relevant regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 2002). If a chronic disease is shown in service, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, may be service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (2004). However, continuity of symptoms is required where the condition in service is not, in fact, chronic or where diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (2004). Further, service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1113(b) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (2004). The Board must determine whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the appellant prevailing in either case, or whether the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case, service connection must be denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Additionally, where a veteran served continuously 90 days or more during a period of war or during peacetime service after December 31, 1946, and an organic disease of the nervous system becomes manifest to a degree of at least 10 percent within one year from the date of termination of service, such a disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in or aggravated by service, even though there is no evidence of such a disorder during the period of service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (2004). In addition to the regulations governing entitlement to service connection outlined above, 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) provides that if a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, the diseases set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) shall be service-connected if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6) are met even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided that the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied. These diseases include chloracne, Type 2 diabetes (also known as Type II diabetes mellitus or adult-onset diabetes), Hodgkin's disease, multiple myeloma, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy, porphyria cutanea tarda, prostate cancer, respiratory cancers (including cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, or trachea), and soft-tissue sarcoma. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(a)(2) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2004). For purposes of this section, the term acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy means transient peripheral neuropathy that appears within weeks or months of exposure to an herbicide agent and resolves within two years of the date of onset. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), Note 2 (2004). A veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. The last date on which such a veteran shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent shall be the last date on which he served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) (2004). The Board notes that in June 2003, 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) was amended to expand the presumption of exposure to herbicides to include all Vietnam veterans, not just those who have a disease on the presumptive list in 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(a)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). See 68 Fed. Reg. 34539, 34541 (June 10, 2003). Thus, the veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicides because he served in Vietnam during the Vietnam era. Despite the presumption of in-service herbicide exposure in Vietnam, the Board is not in a position to grant service connection for the veteran's neurological disorder on a presumptive basis as due to herbicide agent exposure, as the veteran's neurological disorder, manifested by Parkinson-like symptomatology, did not "[appear] within weeks or months of exposure to a herbicide agent and [resolve] within two years of onset." 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), Note 2. However, in the case of Combee v. Brown, 34 F. 3d 1039 (Fed Cir. 1994), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that a veteran was not precluded from presenting proof of direct service connection between a disorder and exposure even if the disability in question was not among conditions enumerated under the Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act, the presumption not being the sole metho |
|||
|
