15-25 029
15-25 029
| Board of Vet. App. | May 31, 2017Background
- Veteran served on active duty (May 1956–May 1959) and in the Navy Reserve (1982–1996); MOS listed as A/C carburetor repairman and equipment/facilities petty officer.
- Veteran contends prostate cancer is service-connected, alleging in-service exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE) used to clean aircraft parts; post-service work as an operating engineer with no further chemical exposure.
- June 2015 VA exam diagnosed adenocarcinoma of the prostate and found, based on reviewed literature, that there is no evidence of a causal association between TCE and prostate cancer.
- Veteran submitted May 2011 internet research (American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine) suggesting excess prostate cancer among workers exposed to solvents, creating an apparent conflict with the VA examiner’s rationale.
- Record shows service treatment records (STRs) were lost in a fire; June 2015 SOC nonetheless lists STRs for 1956–1959 as evidence considered, raising uncertainty whether STRs are actually in file.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer, to include due to in-service TCE exposure | Veteran: prostate cancer caused by in-service TCE exposure while cleaning aircraft parts; submitted research showing associations between solvent/TCE exposure and prostate cancer | VA: June 2015 examiner concluded TCE is a known carcinogen for some cancers but no evidence links TCE causally to prostate cancer; current record does not support service connection | Remanded — AOJ must obtain/clarify STRs, obtain any outstanding records, and secure an addendum opinion reconciling the VA examiner’s conclusions with the Veteran’s submitted research; then readjudicate and issue SSOC if denial persists |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382 (2010) (expert must explain if opinion cannot be given without resort to speculation and indicate whether further evidence could permit an opinion)
- Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999) (claimant may submit additional evidence after a Board remand)
- (Board decision cited underlying procedural authorities and standards but no additional official-case citations were relied on for substantive disposition.)