Agent Orange - Check This Before Posting Your Question It May Have Already Been Answered

[Tbird]

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari...-8&oe=UTF-8

[Berta]

We dont have a Panama AO section here but as you can see ,in this forum, many vets have proved AO exposure in many places other than Vietnam.

Guam, Okinawa, For Mc Clelland, Fort Gordon, Fort Detrick, Thailand, and Korea.

That is a good BVA case.

However it has nothing to do with Panama.

There are some AO Panama claims at the BVA.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp14/Files4/1430162.txt

In this case,you linked above, the remand states exactly what the VA needs and also gives the M21-1MR section you could access via google to see what evidence he would have to submit to the VA.

.

The BVA found his MOS, detailed account, and many other factors were consistent as to his exposure to AO......... in Okinawa.

His statement was very detailed as to his exposure to AO.He described the exact mixture he handled,in a way that no one would understand unless they had first hand knowledge of how the AO was mixed. Also the VA obviously could find no other etiology for his cancer, but for exposure to AO..

Also:

"The RO asked the U.S. Army and Joint Services Environmental

Support Group (ESG), now known as U.S. Armed Services Center

for Research of Unit Records (USASCRUR) to verify any

exposure to herbicides the veteran may have had while in

Okinawa. The ESG responded in April 1997 to the effect that

they had been generally unable to document the use of

herbicides in Okinawa, but that they had sent copies of

various Agent Orange briefs, etc. for the veteran’s

information."

"Correspondence from the veteran in January 1997 reiterated

his repeated Okinawan exposure to herbicides, and further

indicated that at that time, “Operation Ranch Hand” was

already in full swing in January 1961. He said that they

primarily handled Agent Orange since it was not, and the

others were, water soluble and would not wash away when used.

This was particularly important for use in Vietnam but also

in Okinawa (for the other purposes) because of the

significant amount of rain that fell there."

"Also of record are some other service documents, i.e., data

comparable to a partial 201 file which confirm assignment

units, duties, locations, etc., identified elsewhere in this

decision."

This case had other significant aspects:

" However, while

the service department experts have been unable to verify

specific dioxin exposure in Okinawa, they do not negate that

possibility. [in this regard, it should be noted that given

the records-development history in other factual cases with

which the Board is familiar, that there is no guarantee that

even if further development were undertaken, that Army

Personnel or other military sources would be able in any

event to verify the filling of, and mixing of solvents in, 55

gallon drums with herbicides in Okinawa for use in this

particular time period, including as a part of Operation

Ranchhand]."

ORDER

Service connection for prostate cancer due to Agent Orange

exposure is granted.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp98/files1/9800877.txt

A vet with AO presumptives who does not fall within service in Vietnam, or with the Thailand AO regs, or the Korea AO regs,

must prove AO was used and/or stored on their base and that their MOS directly exposed them to it.

As the BVA decision above states ( and many BVA decisions never really reveal all of the evidence)

this vet's 201 file gave them some infortmation they need to arrive at this grant of benefits.

Kurt Priessman , the first Thailand AO vet used the Operation Ranch Hand info and researched it all carefully , and, he won at the RO level, and is responsible for helping many Thailand AO vets who fall under the VA Thailand directive , that we would never have without Kurt's relentless pursuit of his claim and it's proof.

James Cripps, as well, the first CONUS AO vet has done many radio shows here in our archives and gives a compelling narrative of the work he had to do to prove his claim.

I bet AO was used in more places than we could possible know of.

[Jumpmaster]

Sammy104

Berta is correct and gave you good advice. There’s no Panama AO forum.

However, it does appear numerous exposure claims have been filed and you are going to have to search BVA/CAVC decision type in (Panama Agent Orange Exposure) on the BVA site. You will spend hours of intense research trying to find Panama specific evidence that may prove your case but overall in the end and you do win your claim, your time expended would be your best investment.

That’s my non-legal binding, humble opinion, I’m just a veterans who was able to jump off VA hamster wheel this week. I’m trying to help other vets still in the fight. Exposure claims are never easy to prove and all veterans know VA corroborates with DOD to conceal, and not release exposure evidence, nor concede veterans service exposure. The RO will even discount VA’s own expert scientific evidence research in order to deny service connection. Good Luck and God bless your husband for his service.

BVA DECISION SEARCH PANAMA AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE

See results per page:

10 20 50

select/clear years below:

2015 (5) 2014 (21) 2013 (6) 2012 (14) 2011 (17) 2010 (12) 2009 (20) 2008 (13) 2007 (14) 2006 (6) 2005 (5) 2004 (8) 2003 (3) 2002 (2) 2001 (5) 2000 (2) 1999 (5) 1998 (5) 1997 (3) 1996 (3) 1995 1994 1993 1992 (1)

Bottom of Form

Page 1 of 170 results — searched 854013

Query: (panama agent orange exposure)

Review Case #1 from Houston RO they’re responsible for veterans living in Mexico, Central Americas etc.

Citation Nr: 1453083 Decision Date: 12/03/14 Archive Date: 12/10/14 DOCKET NO. 10-14 131

www.va.gov/vetapp14/files7/1453083.txt [view]

The Board also parenthetically observes that the Veteran supplied VA internet-based documentation purporting to show the incurrence of Agent Orange spraying in the canal zone from the 1960's to the early 1970's.  The source of this was "Report: U.S. Exposed Many in Panama to Agent Orange" from the August 20, 1999, edition of the San Francisco Examiner.  See May 2014 VA Form 646.  

 Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

 1.  The AOJ should take the necessary actions to comply with the evidentiary development procedures required by M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section C, para. 10(o) with regard to the claimed herbicide exposure at Fort Clayton during the Veteran's relevant service from 1968 to 1970.

REVIEW CASE #2 BELOW:

Citation Nr: 1201925

Decision Date: 01/18/12 Archive Date: 01/30/12

DOCKET NO. 08-04 556 ) DATE

On appeal from the

Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office Center in

Wichita, Kansas

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to herbicide exposure.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

E. Joyner, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1973 to June 1977 and from January 1979 to January 1995.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a March 2007 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Wichita, Kansas, which denied entitlement to the benefits sought on appeal. The appellant appealed the decision to the Board, and the case was referred to the Board for appellate review. The Veteran appealed only the denials of service connection for pes planus and prostate cancer.

When the case was last before the Board in June 2009, the issue of entitlement to service connection for pes planus was denied and the issue of entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include as due to herbicide exposure was remanded for additional development.

The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required.

REMAND

Reason for Remand: To obtain a clarifying medical opinion.

The Veteran claims that he is entitled to service connection for prostate cancer because it is the result of exposure to herbicides during active service in Panama. When the case was previously remanded, it was determined that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides. Specifically, an August 2011 memorandum from the AMC documents a formal finding of information required corroborating the Veteran's allegation of exposure to herbicides and other pesticides while he was stationed at Fort Clayton in Panama. The formal finding was based upon an August 2011 letter from the United States Army Public Health Command, which notes that the Entomological Sciences Program, Environmental Health Engineering, Army Institute of Public Health, conducted a records search pertaining to pesticide use at Fort Clayton, Panama from October 6, 1988 to January 2, 1995.

Based upon the formal finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides and other pesticides during active service, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in September 2011 in order to determine the nature and etiology of his prostate cancer. The VA examiner indicated in the examination report that although the claims folder was requested, it was not available for review. Additionally, medical records, although requested, were unavailable to the examiner for review. The examiner opined that the issue of the Veteran's service connection claim for prostate cancer as secondary to pesticides and herbicides cannot be resolved without resort to mere speculation. The examiner noted that no information is available to substantiate the Veteran's claim of herbicides or pesticide exposure and in particular, there is no evidence of Agent Orange exposure.

In October 2011, an addendum medical opinion was obtained. The addendum opinion reflects that the new VA examiner reviewed the claims file. The examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's prostate cancer was incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service event. The basis of the opinion is that there is no evidence to substantiate specific exposure to Agent Orange.

When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The Board finds that the October 2011 VA addendum opinion obtained in this case is inadequate, because although the examiner indicated that the claims file was reviewed, the rationale is inconsistent with the evidence of record. Specifically, VA has conceded that the Veteran was exposed to certain herbicides and pesticides during active service in Panama. Agent Orange was not one of the herbicides; however, the claim is not solely based on a claim of Agent Orange exposure. The examiner failed to address whether the Veteran's prostate cancer is at least as likely as not related to exposure to the herbicides and pesticides that VA has conceded exposure to, in its August 2011 memorandum (formal finding conceding exposure).

As such, the claims file, to include a copy of this remand, should be returned to the examiner who provided the October 21, 2011 addendum opinion, in order to ask for a clarifying opinion, instructing the examiner to concede that the Veteran was in fact exposed to the herbicides and pesticides listed in the August 31, 2011 AMC memorandum and August 18, 2011 letter from the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Institute of Public Health.

Therefore, in order to give the Veteran every consideration with respect to the present appeal and to ensure due process, it is the Board's opinion that further development of the case is necessary.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Return the claims file, to include a copy of this remand, to the examiner who provided the October 21, 2011 VA addendum opinion, if he or she is available, and request that he or she review the entire claims file, to include this remand, the service personnel records, the August 31, 2011 memorandum regarding the formal finding corroborating Veteran's allegation of exposure to herbicides and pesticides, the August 18, 2011 letter from the U.S. Army Institute of Public Health, as well as all other medical and lay evidence of record.

The examiner should provide an opinion regarding whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or better probability) that the Veteran's prostate cancer is etiologically related to service, to include his exposure to herbicides and pesticides therein. The examiner should take note that it has been conceded by VA that the Veteran was, in fact, exposed to herbicides and pesticides during active service.

If the examiner who provided the October 21, 2011 addendum opinion is unavailable, the claims file should be forwarded to another qualified examiner in order to provide the opinion requested above. If a new examination is deemed necessary, then one should be scheduled.

A clear rationale for all opinions would be helpful and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. Because it is important "that each disability be viewed in relation to its history [,]" 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (2011), copies of all pertinent records in the appellant's claims file, or in the alternative, the claims file, must be made available to the examiner for review.

In rendering the opinion, the examiner should not resort to mere speculation, but rather should consider that the phrase "at least as likely as not" does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of a certain conclusion as it is to find against it. Thus, unless the examiner concludes that the current disability is either likely or unlikely the result of an event, injury, or disease incurred in service, the examiner should state whether it is at least as likely that the current disability is the result of an event, injury, or disease incurred in service as opposed to its being the result of some other factor or factors.

2. When the development requested has been completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO on the basis of additional evidence. If the benefit sought is not granted, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further review.

The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional development, and the Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of the case, either favorable or unfavorable, at this time. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and/or argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). No action is required of the appellant until he is notified.

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. 2010).

_________________________________________________

KATHLEEN K. GALLAGHER

Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2010).

[Berta]

Good case to read.....

Sometimes vets can lock themselves into claiming AO , when they might instead have a disability related to fuel or other chemical exposures.

I saw a lot of Panama vets cases at the BVA......

It is always good to try to research anything at all on line.

BVA decisions are only veteran-specific....meaning because they might award one vet, that does not mean another vet with a similar situation ,will get an award.

Jumpmaster is right:

"You will spend hours of intense research trying to find Panama specific evidence that may prove your case but overall in the end and you do win your claim, your time expended would be your best investment."

That is exactly how James Cripps and Kurt Priessman won their AO claims.

I know someone with a decade in already and within a similar BVA case, I found the exact entity in another vet's BVA remand, that was who the BVA remanded his claim for input from.... some special department regarding Army exposure documents.( but not AO related)

I copied and pasted the US Army place in the BVA decision, into Google browser and got an email addy and phone number of someone there ,which I passed onto the vet.

As I always say. follow the remand yourself if you can.

The vet said they did have contact with this same person but I don't know if that was ever followed up.

The VA could state, to the BVA, that they were unable to find contact or any info at all from this specific Army entity ( because they will lie) yet if he pursued this himself, he might well have some evidence by now, from the Army that VA said they could not get.

Sammy 104, I assume your husband's disabilities are on the AO presumptive list,because of your first post here.

However some AO disabilities can possibly be also attributed to other inservice causes.

.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Berta

[Jumpmaster]

Sammy104

Berta asked if your husband had a current diagnosis for any presumptive diseases associated to Agent Orange. At the end of this post you will find the current list that VA presumes related to AO/Dioxin exposure.

Help your husband search Facebook for buddies he served with who can confirm AO use in Panama. I’m sure others Hadit readers will chime in about their own Jungle Adventures Hikes and perimeter weed control herbicide/pesticide tales..

One thing for sure reviewing RO DENIED PANAMA EXPOSURE CLAIMS you can smell the aroma of (Skunk not Rat) because VA is lying and never intends to concede that veterans have been exposed in Panama. I’m an avid hunter that enjoy the sound of a pure-bred Walker, Blue-Tick or Red Bone hound in hot pursuit.

I will upload separately a PDF upload about Fort Sherman History 2,4-D, Picloram, Diuron, Bromacil, Dalapon are AWOL third cousins from the Rainbow platoon. I believe that requires scientific expert opinion research to prove any nexus related to VA’s presumptive list. JMO…I’m not a VA accredited Attorney or Claims Agent I'm another aging veterans with memory loss that hope this information helps your husband. You Can Do It, Never Give Up---Attack & Keep Fighting .....Jumpmaster

More Remands For Agent Orange PANAMA

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp14/Files4/1430162.txt

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp98/files4/9833039.txt

The appellant claims that the veteran was exposed to herbicides (Agent Orange) and pesticides while he was stationed in Panama in the early 1970’s.  She argues that she 

has submitted medical opinions regarding the relationship between herbicide exposure and the development of Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  

Information from the Department of the Army in June 1997 noted the use of herbicides in Panama from 1970 to 1974.  There was indication that the information provided was based 

on the author’s best recollection on the use of herbicides.  It was noted that the use of herbicides during the above period was limited to (1) 2, 4-D for the control of broad leaved weeds; Dalapon, for the control of grasses; and Diuron and Bromacil for soil sterilization.

In a statement dated in September 1997, from the Department of the Army, United States Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010-5401, it was noted 

that their response was to the appellant’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated in July 1997, directed to the Department of the Army Freedom of Information and 

Privacy Acts Office.  It noted that she had requested documents or statements relating to the spraying of herbicides, insecticides and any other chemicals used in and around the veteran’s unit in the Panama Canal Zone during the years 1971-1974.  It was noted that her request was referred to the U.S. Army Environmental Center (USAEC) by the Department of the Army Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts Office.

It was noted that USAEC had no documents relating to the veteran’s unit or to any assignments that he may have had.  Additionally, USAEC had no documents that described or confirmed the use of herbicides or pesticides in Panama during the period 1971-1974.  It was noted that the attached documents related generally to the subject matter of the 

appellant’s FOIA request in that they referred to the question of whether herbicides were used in Panama in the 1970’s.  It was noted that the enclosed e-mail message was written in response to an e-mail from an individual at the Armed Forces Pest Management Board (AFPMB).  It was noted that because USAEC did not generate the initial message, it did not have release authority for the initial message.  

Thus, the initial message was referred to the AFPMB for its determination as to the release under FOIA.  In addition, it was noted that USAEC referred another memorandum in 

possession dated June 7, 1997 (Subject; Use of Chemical Defoliants in Panama, 1970-1974) to the AFPMB.  Moreover, it was noted that USAEC received the memorandum from AFPMB but did not have authority to release this document.  Accordingly, it was referred to the AFPMB, Forest Glen Section, WRAMC, Washington, D.C. 20307-5001, for its determination as to the release under FOIA.  No follow-up action was undertaken by the RO to obtain any additional outstanding pertinent records as noted above.

In view of the fact that there appears to be pertinent outstanding records that may be helpful to the appellant’s claim, the Board is of the opinion that additional development is needed in order to supplement the record with sufficient evidence in order to render a determination on the issues on appeal.

To ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to her claims, and to ensure full compliance with 

due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to RO for the following development:

I DO NOT TRUST VA WILL EVER COMPLY WITH DUE PROCESS..EXCEPT DENY UNTIL ALL VETS DIE!

1.  The RO should obtain from the appellant all necessary release of information authorization forms to obtain all outstanding documents located at AFPMB and USAEC pertaining to the veteran’s exposure to the use of herbicides including defoliants,  

insecticides and any other chemicals in proximity with the veteran’s unit in the Panama Canal Zone between 1970 and 1974. Once the releases have been obtained, the RO should obtain all indicated outstanding records. Any obtained records should be associated with the veteran’s claims file.

Army Institute of Public Health

At the U.S. Army Institute of Public Health, the technical elements of the command provide a full suite of public health services and mission capabilities.

Contact Information

Name:

U.S. Army Institute of Public Health

Email Address:

usarmy.apg.medcom-phc.mbx.pao@mail.mil

Telephone:

410-436-8717

DSN:

(312) 584-8717

Mailing Address:

United States Army Public Health Command
Army Institute of Public Health
5158 Blackhawk Road
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5403

Scientists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) currently maintain a permanent monitoring plot at the crane site in the SLPA in Panama.

Agent Orange/Dioxin Associated Diseases

Agent Orange is a highly toxic herbicide used by the U.S. military during the Vietnam War to defoliate hiding places used by the enemy and to clear the perimeters of military installations. Although colorless, it is known as “Agent Orange” because of an orange-colored band painted on the drums used to store and transport it.

After years of advocacy led by Vietnam Veterans of America, Congress enacted into law the Agent Orange Act of 1991. This legislation empowered the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to declare certain maladies as “presumptive” to exposure to Agent Orange/dioxin and enable Vietnam veterans, as well as some veterans who served along the demilitarized zone in Korea during the late 1960s, to receive treatment and compensation for these health conditions. Service-connected benefits, however, may also be granted for other maladies not yet recognized as presumptive service-connected health conditions.

Presumptive Service Connected Illnesses Recognized by the VA As Connected to Agent Orange Herbicide Exposure

• Acute Peripheral Neuropathy: a temporary dysfunction of the nervous system characterized by involuntary “tingling” or numbness in the extremities
• Adult Onset Type II Diabetes Mellitus (and subsequent complications caused by): non-insulin dependent and characterized by high blood sugars
• AL Amyloidosis: a rare group of diseases that results from the abnormal deposition of a particular protein called amyloid in various tissues of the body
• *Chloracne: an acne-like eruption on the skin due to prolonged exposure to certain chlorinated compounds
• Hodgkins Disease: a tumor found in the lymph nodes characterized by increasing enlargement of the lymph nodes, liver, and spleen and accompanied by progressive anemia
• Ischemic (or ischaemic) heart disease: a heart condition resulting when the arteries that bring blood and oxygen to the heart are blocked. There may be a buildup of cholesterol and other substances, called plaque, in the arteries that bring oxygen to heart muscle tissue. Over time, the heart muscle does not work well, and it is more difficult for the heart to fill and release blood. It is the most common cause of congestive heart failure.
• Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma: a rare type of cancer which causes malignant tumors of the lymph nodes, distinguished from Hodgkins disease by the absence of giant Reed-Sternberg cells
• Parkinson’s disease: a neurological disease which limits a person’s ability to control some of his or her muscles. It's caused by a slow, gradual loss of certain cells in the brain which manufacture a chemical called dopamine. This chemical is needed for muscles to work normally. In many people, Parkinson's disease causes movement and muscle problems and may be accompanied by slight, uncontrolled shaking of the arms and legs.
• *Peripheral Neuropathy: a dysfunction of the nervous system involving either the somatic nerves or the autonomic nervous system (see Acute Peripheral Neuropathy); can cause sensory loss, atrophy, and muscle weakness
• *Porphyria Cutanea Tarda: characterized by skin lesions on exposed portions of the body and pigment changes in the skin; liver disease occurs in some patients
• Spina bifida in Children Conceived After Veteran First Arrived in Vietnam: characterized by a defective closure of the spinal chord in which the chord may be exposed and/or protrude.
  Sub-acute Peripheral Neuropathy: a nervous system disorder either acute (temporary) or chronic (long-term) – see acute peripheral neuropathy and peripheral neuropathy

Cancers –

• Cancer of the Bronchus: a malignant tumor found in the bronchus, an extension of the windpipe (trachea) connecting to the lungs
• Cancer of the Larynx: a malignant tumor found in the voice box (larynx)
• Cancer of the Lung: a malignant tumor found in the lungs
• Cancer of the Prostate: a malignant tumor found in the prostate gland
• Cancer of the Trachea: a malignant tumor found in the windpipe (trachea)
• Soft Tissue Sarcoma (a group of soft tissue cancers characterized by malignant tumors which develop on muscles and connective tissue, or in body fat)
  Adult Fibrosarcoma: a tumor formed from connective tissue
• Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma: a sarcoma found in the aveoli, the sac-like ducts in the lungs
• Angiosarcoma: a tumor occurring in the breast and skin and believed to originate from blood vessels
• Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: characterized by progressive increase in production of white blood cells
• Clear Cell Sarcoma of Aponeuroses: a sarcoma found at the end of a muscle where it becomes a tendon
• Clear Cell Sarcoma of Tendons: a sarcoma found in the tendons
• Congenital Fibrosarcoma: a malignant tumor formed before birth and derived from connective tissue
• Dermatofibrosarcoma: a relatively slow-growing skin tumor consisting of one or more firm nodules
• Ectomesenchymoma: a tumor found in certain parts of the skin
• Epithelioid Malignant Leiomysarcoma: a malignant tumor derived from smooth muscle found in the layer covering the muscle
• Epithelioid Malignant Schwannoma: a moderately firm, benign tumor found in the layers of membrane covering surfaces inside the body cavity caused by too many Schwann cells growing in a disorderly manner
• Epithelioid Sarcoma: a tumor found in the membrane covering surfaces inside the body cavity
• Extraskeletal Ewing’s Sarcoma: a tumor outside the bone consisting of small rounded cells
• Hairy cell leukemia: a slow-growing form of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) called such because the leukemic lymphocytes have short, thin projections on their surfaces that look like hairs when examined under a microscope. Hairy cell leukemia is caused by an abnormal change in a B lymphocyte (a type of white cell).
• Hemangiosarcoma: a tumor derived from blood vessels and lining blood-filled spaces
• Infantile Fibrosarcoma: a tumor formed as a child derived from fibrous connective tissue
• Leiomyosarcoma: a tumor derived from smooth muscle
• Liposarcoma: a tumor that may occur anywhere in the body consisting of irregular fat cells
• Lymphangiosarcoma: a tumor derived from blood vessels
• Lymphoma: a malignant tumor of the lymph nodes
• Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma: a type of tumor found in connective tissue
• Mailgnant Giant Cell Tumor of the Tendon Sheath: a tumor found in the membrane of tendons
• Malignant Glandular Schwannoma: a moderately firm malignant tumor in the glands caused by too many Schwann cells growing in a disorderly patter
• Malignant Glomus Tumor: a tumor found in the tiny nodes (glomuli) in the the nailbed, pads of fingers, toes, ears, hands, feet, and other body organs
• Malignant Hemangiopericytoma: a tumor characterized by rapidly growing fat cells formed in blood vessels and lining blood-filled spaces
• Malignant Mesenchymoma: a malignant tumor in the embryonic tissue or fluid
• Malignant Shwannoma with Rhabdomyoblastic: a moderately firm malignant tumor found in skeletal muscles resulting from the rapid disorderly growth pattern of Schwann cells
• Multiple Myeloma: cancer of specific bone marrow cells characterized by bone marrow tumors in the skeletal system
• Proliferating Angiedotheliomatosis: increasing numbers of benign tumors in blood cells, often causing skin discoloration
• Rhabdomysarcoma: tumors derived from skeletal muscle
• Sarcoma: tumors arising in connective tissue, bone, cartilage, or muscle
• Synovial Sarcoma: a tumor found in the lubricating fluid surrounding joints and tendons

*subject to time requirements for purposes of filing claims

NOTE: This list may change over time. For official updates, see Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations Section 3.303(e) “Disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents”

Birth Defects* Recognized by the VA As Connected to Agent Orange Herbicide Exposure

• Spina Bifida: children born to either male or female Vietnam veterans; Spina Bifida Occulta not included

Children born to female Vietnam veterans

• Achondroplasia: produces a type of dwarfism
• Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate
• Congenital Heart Disease
• Congenital Talipses Equinovarus: clubfoot
• Esophageal and Intestinal Atresia
• Hallerman-Streiff Syndrome: premature small growth and other related defects
• Hip Dysplasia
• Hirschprung’s Disease: congenital megacolon
• Hydrocephalus Due to Aqueductal Stenosis,
• Hypospadias: abnormal opening in the urethra
• Imperforate Anus
• Neural Tube Defects
• Poland Syndrome: webbed fingers
• Pyloric Stenosis
• Syndactyly: fused digits
• Tracheoesophageal Fistula
• Undescended Testicles
• Williams syndrome: thyroid defects

Not covered are conditions that are congenital malignant neoplasms, chromosomal disorders, or developmental disorders. In addition, conditions that do not result in permanent physical or mental disability are not covered birth defects.

NOTE: this list may change over time. Additional information about birth defects and Agent Orange exposure can be found online at http:// www.birthdefects.org maintained by the National Birth Defect Registry.

[sammy104]

Berta and Jumpmaster, you both are wonderful ito offer your information, directing us which way to go with this. By the grace of God I pray something will pan out. Hubby for sure has ischemic heart disease and adult onset type 2 diabetes. Keep us in your prayers as we try to pursue all aspects of A O in Panama. Huge thank you to you both!! :)