VA Rejects Challenge From Physicians & Scientists re: C-123 Agent Orange Exposure

Late last year fifteen highly reputable physicians and scientists wrote the VA challenging the "unscientific" denial of C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims. Today, these experts released the VA's rejection, a letter by the VA's Compensation and Pension (C&P) in which VA flatly denied the experts' conclusions.

In ignoring their input, VA blatantly ignored members of the National Academy of Sciences, experts from other federal agencies, and faculty members from prestigious universities. These independent experts, according to the VA, are completely inadequate to sway the VA's Compensation Services to even grant veterans the "benefit of the doubt" required by law.

At least, the experts were assured that their independent opinions will be considered a source of evidence in C-123 veterans' claims. The veterans do not find this assuring, however, because while the VA says C-123 vets can qualify for benefits on one page of their web site, on others they explain why claims will be denied.

None of the concerned independent scientists and physicians were paid to research and present their expert opinions. 

The evidence associated with service on post-Vietnam C-I23 aircraft shows that

some of these aircraft contained dried residual traces of the Agent Orange herbicide

contaminant dioxin, which could only be obtained and measured by rubbing the interior

metal surface with the solvent hexane, You have stated that the dioxin obtained by this

process is sufficient to establish that the crewmembers were "exposed." However, the

scientists and medical doctors of the VA Office of Public Health have documented with

scientific literature that residual trace amounts of dioxin on metal surfaces is not

biologically available for skin absorption or inhalation because it is not water or sweat

soluble and does not give off airborne particles. As a result, they have concluded that the

likelihood of dioxin exposure was minimal, Your view of potential exposure must be

weighed against their view when VA evaluates a disability claim.

In addition to the issue of potential exposure, there is the issue of establishing a

medical nexus or link between the in-service event of flying on a post-Vietnam C-123

aircraft and development of a current Agent Orange exposure-related disease. VA laws

and policies related to Agent Orange exposure, whether presumptive or based on facts-

found evidence, address exposure contact that occurs during the actual spraying or

handling of the dioxin-containing liquid herbicide. There are no provisions for secondary

or remote exposure, as is the case with dried dioxin residuals on metal surfaces found

many years after the liquid state. The scientific evidence available to establish a medical

nexus in these cases is limited and the VA Office of Public Health has provided a medical

opinion that it is insufficient to establish the required nexus. While your letter focuses on

the issue of potential dioxin exposure, it does not offer an opinion on the medical nexus

issue nor does it address the potential for long-term health effects or disabilities resulting

from service on the post-Vietnam C-123 aircraft

Another issue you raised is the wording of the Agent Orange Act of 1991, which

establishes a presumption of exposure to "herbicide agents" used in Vietnam that

includes chemicals other than dioxin. You state that consideration should be given to

these other chemicals when considering disability compensation based on exposure

because they may have been present in the post-Vietnam C-I23 aircraft, However, since

there is no presumption of exposure to any herbicide agents without Vietnam service, this

legislation is not applicable. Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute

of Medicine, which is named in this legislation as a major source of scientific information

related to herbicide agent exposure and its adverse health effects, has determined that

dioxin is the primary "chemical of interest" associated with adverse health effects. If a

disability claim were based on exposure to other herbicide agents, the same evidence of

direct facts-found exposure and a medical nexus would be required for service

connection.

We appreciate your input and the evidence you have provided on the issue of

disability compensation for Veterans who served aboard post-Vietnam C-123 aircraft.

When VA receives claims from Veterans based on this service, they will be evaluated

based on the totality of the evidence, as described above, and determinations will be

made on a case-by-case basis.

/signed/

Director of Compensation Services