Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Fw: Va Links Brain Cancer To Agent Orange Exposure In Recent Court Decision

Rate this question


allan

Question

  • HadIt.com Elder

To: Veteran Issues by Colonel Dan <VeteranIssues@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [VeteranIssues] FW: VA Links Brain Cancer to Agent Orange Exposure in Recent Court DecisionDate: Feb 17, 2011 7:43 AM

From: Robert White

Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 8:33 AM

To: Robert White

Subject: VA Links Brain Cancer to Agent Orange Exposure in Recent Court Decision

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/02/prweb5080394.htm

VA Links Brain Cancer to Agent Orange Exposure in Recent Court Decision

It is notoriously difficult for veterans to get their disabilities connected to their military service - even when the connection is apparent. In this unique case, the Department of Veterans Affairs was made to concede a very important connection and gave justice to a struggling widow.

Ozark, MO (PRWEB) February 17, 2011

Mrs. Sheree Evans is the surviving spouse of Vietnam Veteran, Edward T. Evans, who passed away from Glioblastoma Multiforme (GM), or more commonly known as brain cancer, in March of 2003. Since this time, Sheree has fought for widow’s benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for her husband’s cause of death as a result of Agent Orange exposure (Board of Veterans' Appeals, Docket No. 05-00 201 / U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Vet. App. No. 06-2190). While Mr. Evans was presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange during his service in the Vietnam War, one of the most challenging obstacles for Sheree was showing that his exposure to Agent Orange caused the development of brain cancer. VA had consistently maintained that brain cancer is not on their list of Agent Orange-related disabilities, and, as a result, that there is no medical link for the development of this specific cancer to Agent Orange Exposure.

Sheree’s long struggle against VA took her to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, the highest level of the Veterans Administration’s appeals process. Once she had been denied there, Sheree appealed her case to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. There she was successful in getting the final decision by VA vacated because VA had used an independent medical opinion as evidence, which was merely grounded in the lack of GM being on the Agent Orange Presumptive list as the basis for denying a relationship. VA then ordered another medical opinion which determined that there was no research into the relationship between GM and Agent Orange. Sheree countered with a medical assessment which argued that there was an abundance of research into the relationship between GM and Agent Orange. In a recent decision, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided that the evidence in favor and against were in equal weight and applied the benefit of the doubt rule and on January 26th, 2011 granted Sheree’s claim. While this is not a precedential decision, VA did admit a link between the two. Time will tell what the outcome of this will amount to, but GM may very well come to be added to the Agent Orange presumptive list.

According to Court documents, Sheree had fought for service connection for the cause of her husband’s death for almost eight years, based on a promise that she had made to him before his death. Sheree plans to write a book in honor of Edward that commemorates his life, his struggle with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of his combat experience in Vietnam that left him physically scarred from a shell fragment, and her fight to give him the recognition that he deserves. She is very active with the Order of the Silver Rose, an advocacy group for Veterans and families who have been affected by Agent Orange.

GM is a highly aggressive form of brain cancer which, when left untreated, usually results in death in less than three months. GM has been widely researched and recent studies indicate that there is an increasing prevalence of brain cancers as a result of exposure to toxins (IOM, 2008). Though not specifically studied in Veterans of the Vietnam War, current research shows a causal relationship between herbicide exposure and GM.

The fact is that there is an unusually high number of Vietnam Veterans who suffer from GM and, due to GM’s aggressive nature, a sizable percentage of them have passed on. Studies of the dioxin TCDD, the main dioxin in Agent Orange, in laboratory animals have shown to cause cancers at a variety of sites, including GM (IOM, 2008). These studies have concluded that it is plausible that human exposure to TCDD would cause the same variety of cancers as in laboratory animals. However, there has been a lack of studies on the relationship between Vietnam Veterans and exposure to TCDD. Therefore, the Institute of Medicine, which VA recognizes as the authority of recognizing a relationship between disabilities and Agent Orange, has not issued any reports linking Agent Orange and GM.

*Institute of Medicine. (2008) Veterans and Agent Orange: health effects of herbicides used in Vietnam. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Reference: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

"Keep on, Keepin' on"

Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan"

See my web site at:

http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

  • HadIt.com Elder

You know the VA does not do research on effects of AO. They depend on others to do the research. Who cares about AO nowdays? IOM puts research studies together, but who actually pays? The reason no connection has been found for many cancers and AO is because nobody is looking. As far as the nation is concerned Vietnam vets died 40 years ago. In a world of tight budgets who cares about aging RVN vets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My father, a Vietnam Vet was initially diagnosed with IHD and lung cancer in 1977. After undergoing years of treatment for both of these diseases, my father developed a brain tumor that ultimately took his life. I was contacted by the VA re: Nehmer on Jan 21, 2011. In that telephone conversation the VA mentioned his lung cancer and not the IHD, one of the presumtive illnesses now granted service connection under Nehmer. The VA gave us an effective date of 7/31/2010.

My parents made a claim to the VA in 1978 for the IHD and the lung cancer which was denied. As I understand Nehmer, they will review my father's case and possibly grant retroactive benefits, but only as far back as the effective date that they assigned to his claim.

My question is, will they consider the fact that he had IHD and lung cancer? I believe the primary cause of death is the brain tumor. Since the VA does not recognize the connection between AO and brain tumors, will they deny the claim even though lung cancer was connected in 1994 and IHD on 8/31/10?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

If the brain tumor was a cancer that spread from the lungs to the brain that should be connected. If a person has lung cancer it is likely that there cancer will spread all over the body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dizzyliz said:

"I was contacted by the VA re: Nehmer on Jan 21, 2011. In that telephone conversation the VA mentioned his lung cancer and not the IHD, one of the presumtive illnesses now granted service connection under Nehmer. The VA gave us an effective date of 7/31/2010.

My parents made a claim to the VA in 1978 for the IHD and the lung cancer which was denied. As I understand Nehmer, they will review my father's case and possibly grant retroactive benefits, but only as far back as the effective date that they assigned to his claim."

I strongly suggest that you contact NVLSP via their web site-I posted the link this week again in our Agent Orange forum.

The date of the past 1978 claim might NOT qualify under Nehmer.

NVLSP won the Beverly Nehmer Court Decision and only by contacting them will the proper retro date be applied to your claim.

That is- if the VA fails to use the proper date, NVLSP will step in and change that.

If they know the circumstances of the claim.

The entire Nehmer Training Guide is in our AO forum.

Did he subsequently ever re -open the 1978 claim and receive a denial after Sept 1985?

When did he die and did his spouse file a DIC claim that was denied? What was the DIC claim date? Was it after Sept 1985?

VA is failing to inform NVLSP of all Nehmer claims.We have to do that ourselves via the NVLSP web site.

GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !

When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief

Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was

simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."

Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clarify what i meant--

In 1989 the Court invalidated all denials of all claims “ based on diseases related to Agent Orange if such denials were made on or after September 25, 1985.”

Nehmer V VA, 712,F Supp. 1404 (N.D. Cal 1989)

VBM ,by NVLSP 2010 Edition page 213

If those denials were made, however on or after September 25,1985,they are subject to re adjudication under Nehmer Court Order and Stipulation ( 1991).

It is a past denial after Sept 25th,1985, for an AO disability that warrants a current AO claim to fall under Nehmer.

In your case, since the VA itself said the claim falls under Nehmer, they must have found evidence of claim for lung cancer or IHD disease denied after Sept 25,1985.

This is why I asked if your mother had filed DIC claim after that date -that was denied.

Edited by Berta

GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !

When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief

Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was

simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."

Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read the Nehmer training manual. See page 12- As I understand it, a Nehmer claim means that the first claim of service connection for the condition at issue was received BEFORE the condition was added to the list of AO related disabilities AND the effective date for the grant of service will also be BEFORE the condition was added. The VA assigned the effective date of 7/31/10 which is for the IHD which is prior to the date it was added to the list on 8/31/10.

My mom is no longer with us, so I don't know for sure if she filed a claim for DIC, but to the best of my knowledge she did not.

So, my dad filed a claim for lung cancer and IHD in 77. This is prior to either of these diseases being added to the AO list. According to page 12 of the Nehmer because his claims in 77 were both made before they we added to the list (lung cancer-1994 and IHD 8/31/10) his claim is a Nehmer claim.

My concern is, that he died as the result of his brain tumor. This is not on the AO list. If this was primary cause of death, then will they deny claim of IHD?

Also since lung cancer was added in 1994, and claim for lung cancer is prior to the date it was added, do I have to file a separate claim? I have contacted NVLSP, and they say my claim is complicated and that I need to wait until VA makes a decision and they will review from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Lebro earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • spazbototto earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Paul Gretza earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Troy Spurlock went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • KMac1181 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 0 replies
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 replies
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use