Okinawa/thailand Vet

[Berta]

for rthomass and others:

http://www.va.gov/vetapp06/files6/0640092.txt

The BVA is taking these claims by far more seriously than they used to-

The veteran did a lot of leg work--and the BVA stated:

"Thus, based on the veteran's MOS and the supporting lay

evidence, and with resolution of all reasonable doubt in the

veteran's favor (see 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2006)), the Board

finds that he was exposed to pesticides during service.

However, the medical opinions addressing the question of

medical nexus are not specific to pesticide exposure, and are

not sufficiently definitive to resolve the claim on appeal.

Accordingly, a VA examination to obtain a more definitive

medical opinion as to the relationship, if any, between the

veteran's in-service pesticide exposure and his prostate

cancer, is warranted. See 38 U.S.C."

Only thing that concerns me- is the VA exam to have "definitive" nexus-

at that point this claim could well get buggered-

The vet did have medical opinions-

they probably lacked the specific criteria needed for an IMO.

The medical opinions were great but still I guess they lacked the medical rationale needed:

For example, in May 2006,

"a Brooke Army Medical Center staff urologist opined that it

is as likely as not that the veteran's prostate cancer is

associated with his herbicide/pesticide exposure; that same

facility's assistant chief urologist commented that it "is

not inconceivable" that the veteran's greatest risk factor

for developing prostate cancer "may have been" his

extensive exposure to various defoliating chemicals and

herbicides; the Walter Reed Army Hospital director of

urologic oncology opined, in August 2000, that the veteran

was apparently exposed to herbicides in Okinawa and that

although it cannot be said for certain that herbicide

exposure causes cancer, it seems that the veteran meets the

established criteria for the nexus between his exposure and

his cancer; and, in August 2006, Dr. "L.A." wrote that it

appears that the veteran received significant chemical

exposure to herbicides and pesticides during military

service, and that it was his opinion that the veteran's

cancer has been contributed to if not caused by his exposure

to hazardous chemicals."

I don't really understand why the BVA remanded for another opinion-the urologist from Walter Reed certainly had the expertise they needed-

then again- these cases -while not setting precedent- do set the stage for vets not in Vietnam or Korea to receive SC awards for AO.

This case concedes exposure.The cancer is presumptive.

How could this vet's disability be any different from an incountry Nam vet's prostrate cancer from AO exposure?

In this case the VA has to attempt to give full medical rationale against the IMOs- the more I read this case , the more angry I get-

I feel BVA could have awarded without some VA doctor opining on it.