There is a lot of subtle deception in VA's answer today to Senator Gardner's inquiries. In particular, how C&P twisted the ATSDR "vets were exposed" conclusion to Mr. Murphy's summary, "TCDD causes no adverse health effects." In the military, this is a prevarication and unacceptable. Also interesting was VA's response about how they opted to just disregard JSRRC's confirmation of veterans' exposure, because VA wouldn't accept CDC and other government opinions and instead accepted Dow, Monsanto, and VA's Agent Orange consultant to constitute "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" to block C-123 claims. Finally, VA continues to insist below that C-123 claims were denied for want of medical nexus...but VBA avoids reminding the Senator no veteran ever need prove medical nexus...only Agent Orange exposure. That's the law!
– Response to Senator Cory Gardner (CO) –
Questions re Agent Orange - TCDD/C-123 Exposure1. In 2012, VBA Compensation and Pension (over Mr. Tom Murphy's signature) directed VARO Portland to deny an Agent Orange exposure claim. Included in C&P's advisory was its summation of the CDC/ATSDR C-123 report by Dr. Tom Sinks, "In summary, there is no conclusive evidence that TCDD exposure causes any adverse health effects."
Question: does this remain C&P's official position regarding TCDD exposure and how have any adjustments in it (if any) been undertaken as regards this and other claims? Does the VBA perspective on TCDD differ from the scientific view of other VA departments?
Response: The 2012 Compensation Service Director’s advisory opinion concerned that claim only. However, his advisory opinion was consistent with VA’s views on post-Vietnam exposure to Agent Orange on C-123 aircraft at that time. VA’s current position regarding exposures on C-123 aircraft is reflected in the regulations published on June 19, 2015, which established a presumption of exposure to Agent Orange for a select group of Air Force and Air Force Reserve personnel who had regular and repeated contact with contaminated C-123 aircraft that the Air Force used in Vietnam in Operation Ranch Hand. Under these regulations, a Veteran who meets the eligibility criteria for the presumption of exposure (air, ground maintenance, or medical crew members who served in units that had the aircraft after Operation Ranch Hand) may file an original compensation claim for a covered disability or may reopen a previously denied claim. (NOTE: question unanswered by VBA)
Question: this C&P statement was its summary of Dr. Tom Sinks' (CDC/ATSDR) conclusion that C-123 exposures resulted in 182-times exposure thresholds and 200-times greater cancer risks. Does the VA summary concluding its paragraph on the CDC/ATSDR report accurately reflect Dr. Sinks' conclusions?
Response: Dr. Sinks’ views related to increased exposure were addressed in the January 2015 IOM report on C-123 exposures, and the IOM report provided the scientific and medical bases for VA’s current regulations. As described above, these regulations provide a presumption of exposure to Agent Orange for certain C-123 crew members. (NOTE: question unanswered by VBA)
Question: has the above phrase been used on any other Agent Orange claims?
Response: VA is not aware of the use of the above phrase in evaluating any other claim.
2. In March 2013, the DoD's Joint Services Records Research Center informed VA's Agent Orange desk in Compensation and Pension that evidence from federal health agencies (CDC/ATSDR, USPHS) existed supporting Agent Orange exposure claims of post-Vietnam C-123 veterans. VA21-1MR details the role of JSRRC confirmation of exposure, and VA personnel commented on whether the JSRRC information would affect veterans' claims. In May 2014, veteran-specific JSRRC confirmation of C-123 Agent Orange exposure was received by VBA.
