Claim Assistance

[BernieB]

Does anyone have any information about filing a VA clain for scoliosos (curved spine) and pre-skin cancer?

I entered the AF with scoliosis, and later suffered back trouble that put me in the hospital. Yes, it is in my records.

While in the AF, I got a lot of bad, bad sunburns from having to work outdoors - I have very light skin. This is in my records as well. Now, I'm 46 and getting skins cancers cut off my head.

I don't know enough about the benefit regulations to know if any of these conditions are covered.

Can someone point me in the right direction? Thanks. Bernard

[rattattat]

Here is an example of a claim for skin cancer. I think it pretty much tells you what you need to do in order to be sucessful in winning a claim for skin cancer. There are many more at the BVA website. Hope this helps.

Citation Nr: 0602557

Decision Date: 01/30/06 Archive Date: 02/07/06

DOCKET NO. 04-08 847 ) DATE

)

)

On appeal from the

Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Muskogee,

Oklahoma

THE ISSUES

1. Entitlement to service connection for skin cancer.

2. Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic

stress disorder (PTSD) as secondary to the service connected

tonsillectomy.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Oklahoma Department of

Veterans Affairs

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Jeffrey Pisaro, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from May 1974 to May 1978.

This appeal arises from an August 2003 rating decision of the

Muskogee, Oklahoma Regional Office (RO).

The issue of service connection for PTSD is addressed in the

REMAND portion of the decision below and is REMANDED to the

RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington,

DC.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable

resolution of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the

RO.

2. The veteran currently suffers from skin cancer that is

etiologically related to exposure to the sun during service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Skin cancer was incurred in active military service. 38

U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2005).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The service medical records are silent regarding the presence

of skin cancer.

The veteran's DD Form 214 shows that his military

occupational specialty was an aircraft maintenance

specialist. At the time of separation from service, the

veteran was stationed at Williams Air Force Base in Arizona.

An April 2000 private treatment note indicates that the

veteran was treated for keratotic type lesions of the nose

and right temple. The examiner noted that it was hard to

state whether these lesions represented basal cell carcinoma.

An October 2001 VA treatment note shows that the veteran had

been treated for skin cancer of the neck and scapula.

A March 2005 statement from George Monks, M.D., indicates

that during service the veteran had reportedly worked on a

flight line as a jet mechanic in the Arizona sun. The

veteran had been diagnosed with non-melanoma skin cancer. It

was opined that it was likely that sun exposure during

service contributed significantly to the development of skin

cancer lesions.

Service connection means that the facts, shown by evidence,

establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in

disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active

military service or, if preexisting such service, was

aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West

2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2005).

With chronic disease shown as such in service so as to permit

a finding of service connection, subsequent manifestations of

the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote,

are service-connected, unless clearly attributable to

intercurrent causes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303( (2005). 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) (2005).

The veteran contends that he currently suffers from skin

cancer that is the result of exposure to the sun over an

extended period of time while working on a flight line in

Arizona during service. The evidence supports this claim.

The veteran's service personnel records corroborate the

essential factual predicates to the veteran's claim; that is,

that the veteran worked during service as an aircraft

maintenance specialist while he was stationed in Arizona.

Excessive sun exposure during service is therefore consistent

with the facts and circumstances of the veteran's military

service. What is necessary to substantiate this claim,

therefore, is competent and credible medical evidence that

links skin cancer, that was first manifest in the early

2000s, with the veteran's service that ended in 1978.

The Board notes that section 1110 does not require that a

disability be present during service. In Douglas v.

Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 103 (1992), when commenting on a claim

for skin cancer due to sun exposure during service, the Court

observed that the development of a cancerous growth years

after service did not eradicate the potential for recovery

under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110. It is a further guiding principle

of VA law that in evaluating evidence, the Board may not rely

upon its own unsubstantiated medical opinion. Allday v.

Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517 (1995).

Dr. Monks March 2005 statement offers competent and credible

evidence in support of this claim. Dr. Monks was the

veteran's treating physician. The statement reflects an

accurate knowledge of the veteran's personal and medical

history. Moreover, Dr. Monks' medical practice is in the

field of dermatology. With these factors as a basis, Dr.

Monks offered the specific and clear nexus opinion that sun

exposure during service contributed significantly to the

development of skin cancer. In short, Dr. Monks' opinion

constitutes credible nexus evidence connecting the veteran's

skin cancer with service. Accordingly, the Board finds that

the evidence supports the veteran's claim of service

connection for skin cancer on a direct incurrence basis.

The Board also acknowledges the Veterans Claims Assistance

Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000)

(codified as amended at 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103,

5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (West Supp. 2005)). The Act imposes

certain notification requirements and clarified VA's duty to

assist claimants in developing evidence pertinent to their

claims. As the service connection issue on appeal is being

granted in full, the Board finds no prejudice has resulted to

the veteran's due process rights regardless of whether there

have been any deficiencies in the development of this issue

in terms of adjudicative compliance with the VCAA.

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for skin cancer is granted.

REMAND

The veteran contends that the RO erred by failing to grant

service connection for PTSD that is proximately due to or the

result of the service connected tonsillectomy.

Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence

diagnosing the condition; a link, established by medical

evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service

stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed

inservice stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (e) (2005).

In this case, the veteran testified in February 2005 that he

had been receiving ongoing mental health care treatment for

PTSD at the Tulsa VA outpatient clinic for more than a year

and a half. A review of the record shows that the veteran's

VA treatment records have not been obtained. In this

context, the Board notes that a VA examination relative to

the PTSD claim was conducted at a time when the examiner did

not have the veteran's mental health care records. It is a

well settled principle of law that VA is required to conduct

an accurate and descriptive medical examination based on the

complete medical record. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2; Green v.

Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121 (1991). It was further determined

in the case of Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995), that

service connection may be awarded for a disability under 38

C.F.R. § 3.310 if a disability was aggravated by a service-

connected disability.

In this case, the veteran maintains that PTSD is proximately

due to or the result of the service connected tonsillectomy

or, in the alternative, that the service connected

tonsillectomy aggravated PTSD. The veteran should therefore

be provided a VA psychiatric examination to include a medical

opinion as to whether a diagnosis of PTSD is warranted and,

if so, whether PTSD is the result of the service-connected

tonsillectomy, or whether the service-connected tonsillectomy

aggravated PTSD.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1. The RO should ask the veteran to

provide information regarding all

medical treatment for the disability at

issue that has not already been made

part of the record. The RO should

assist the veteran in obtaining all

relevant evidence that is not already of

record to include all mental health

treatment records from the Tulsa VA

outpatient clinic. If records sought

are not obtained, the RO should notify

the veteran of the records that were not

obtained, explain the efforts taken to

obtain them, and describe further action

to be taken. Once obtained, all records

must be permanently associated with the

claims folder.

2. The RO should then schedule the

appellant for a comprehensive VA

examination by a psychiatrist. The

claims file must be made available to

and reviewed by the examiner and all

necessary special studies or tests

including psychological testing and

evaluation are to be accomplished if

deemed necessary. The examining

psychiatrist must explain whether the

veteran's service connected

tonsillectomy meets the criteria for a

stressor that could precipitate PTSD,

including the basis for that conclusion.

If the veteran's tonsillectomy is a

sufficient stressor, the examining

psychiatrist, after examination of the

appellant and review of his entire

medical history, to include in-service

and post-service medical reports, should

provide an opinion as to whether the

veteran meets the diagnostic criteria

for PTSD and, if so, whether it is at

least as likely as not that PTSD a) is

proximately due to the service connected

tonsillectomy, or B) whether PTSD has

been permanently aggravated by the

veteran's service-connected

tonsillectomy. (In answering these

questions, the physician must use the

standard of proof provided by the

Board.) If PTSD is not found, that

matter should also be specifically set

forth. All factors upon which the VA

opinion is based must be set forth in

the written report.

3. When the above development has been

completed, the RO should review the

expanded record and re-adjudicate the

issue remaining on appeal. If any

benefit sought remains denied, a

supplemental statement of the case

(SSOC) should be issued and the veteran

and his representative should be

afforded an opportunity to respond

before the case is returned to the Board

for further appellate review. The SSOC

must contain notice of all relevant

actions taken on the claim, including a

summary of the evidence and applicable

law and regulations considered pertinent

to the issue currently on appeal.

Additionally, if the veteran does not

appear for a scheduled examination, the

SSOC should specifically refer to 38

C.F.R. § 3.655 (2005).

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for

further appellate review, if in order. By this remand, the

Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted.

No action is required of the veteran until he is notified by

the RO. The veteran has the right to submit additional

evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded to

the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).

This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law

requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of

Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals

for Veterans Claims for additional development or other

appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.

See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2005).

______________________________________________

F. JUDGE FLOWERS

Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Department of Veterans Affairs

[BernieB]

I saw my civilian doc since my original post about scoliosis. He told me I have early spinal arthritis. Will that change anything with the VA and my claim? He has started meds and treatment.

[BernieB]

Does anyone know if there are health hazards related to being around ground launch cruise missiles? I'm trying to cover all my bases. Thank you. Bernie

[Berta]

With the sunburn in your records ( and I assume the Mil might not have suppied sunscreen in those days- as they sure do now)and the obvious residual cancers-I am sure you could succeed on a SC claim.

Do you have any residuals for any possible heat stroke?

I discussed this with an attorney who reps vets the other day-

he is having a heck of a time with 3 claims at the BVA-

the veterans have documented heat stroke in their SMRs.2 had been hospitalized in the Mil for it.

they claim heat stroke residuals today-

(I dont know what heat stroke residuals would involve)

He got the NOA (National Weather Service Reports for the temps and dry bulb, humidity info etc for the exact days they claimed exposure to high heat during training exercises-or maneuvers etc-when a red flag was either up or supposed to be up.

I dont know if any of them were Nam vets-obviously they were always exposed to heat-

you mentioned USAF in the profile here-

I went to private pilot school -I am a civilian-so I know

tarmacs can get HOT too-

heat and sunlight is also reflected off planes-

I think many vets have been exposed to sunburn with residuals as well as high temps that could have caused residuals.

[BernieB]

Berta, I was in basic and at my two duty assignments. Mostly it involved painting - curbing, signs, stuff like that. We were told to talk off our T-shirts so wouldn't get them dirty. I was at Lackland, Shepherd, Comiso AS Sicily and Norton AFB.

[Berta]

Health hazards of Cruise missles-

http://www.stormingmedia.us/keywords/CRUISE_MISSILES-9.html

some info there-

for a VA claim the info would have to be specific-

What current disability did exposure cause

what type of exposure was it

medical nexus between both of these-

DU Depleted Uranium is a major susject of concern among disabled vets as well as the fuel toxins- and all sorts of stuff that are used in these types of missiles-

you mentioned painting-

I bet the paint they used to use contained lots of lead in the Mil- as well as alot of the painting was done without adequate ventilation-

The Mil is full of all sorts of chemicals- JP-4 and JP-5 etc etc ,carbon tetrachloride etc- numerous carcigenics etc-

any vet with a disability who can prove this came directly from some specific sort of exposure in the Mil-by strong medical evidence- has a good basis for a claim and award of SC.

It takes medical evidence (usually from a real doctor- a specialist who is independent of the VA) to succeed in these claims.