24 June 2015

VA "Duty to Assist" – Why didn't they?

VA didn't help, but instead insisted for years no evidence existed to support C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure claims. VA insisted it had "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" (a phrase created to encompass the VA policy, rather than weight of evidence) against the veterans' claims.

VBA's duty to assist arises from a variety of sources, including the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act, and VA's own regulation VAM21-1MR. VBA errs when it fails to consider a M21-1MR provision's possible relevance with respect to VA's compliance with the duty to assist.  See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a).  But here VBA simply excused itself from compliance with all of these mandates.

Here's the statutory language requiring VA to assist veterans in presenting disability claims:
§21.1032  VA has a duty to assist claimants in obtaining evidence.
(a) VA’s duty to assist begins when VA receives a complete or substantially complete application.
 (1) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, upon receipt of a complete or substantially complete application for educational assistance under subpart C, D, G, H, K, L, or P of this part, VA will:
  (i) Make reasonable efforts to help a claimant obtain evidence necessary to substantiate the claim; and
  (ii) Give the assistance described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section to an individual attempting to reopen a finally decided claim.
 (2) VA will not pay any fees a custodian of records may charge to provide the records VA requests.  (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5103A)
(b) Obtaining records not in the custody of a Federal department or agency. 
VA is specifically charged by VCAA with locating records from other Federal agencies as well as state and municipal governments. But the record shows VA elected not to search for these materials when needed for C-123 veterans' claims. Even when such vital documents for proving veterans' claims were in already in VA's possession, individuals in VA disputed them, failed to provide them to veterans and their attorneys, and failed to inform senior VA leaders of their existence.

But what's a little thing like the US Constitution to VA staffers determined to block C-123 veterans' claims? Well, it is quite a big thing, and such abuse quickly invites questions as is happening now.

What proofs did VA suppress or otherwise abuse?
1. March 2013 Joint Services Records Research Center confirmation of C-123 veterans' exposure per VAM21-1MR, with DOD specifically suggesting use of the confirmation by VA claims officials
2. CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry confirmation of C-123 veterans' exposures. The deputy director (Dr. Tom Sinks,) the director (Dr. Christopher Portier,) and the interim director (Rear Admiral R. Ikeda MD USPHS) each informed VBA that CDC concluded C-123 veterans were exposed to 182-times military thresholds for dioxin exposure and suffered a 200-fold greater cancer risk. This information was disputed and not provided claimants who didn't already have it. VA also had but failed to act upon input from the National Toxicology Program, the US Public Health Service, the EPA (which concurred with the CDC finding but did not conduct its own investigation,) and multiple state agencies including medical schools, toxicology centers and even VA physician researchers.
3. May 2014 Joint Services Records Research Center began individual confirmation reports on C-123 veterans. Instead of accepting this proof and others as reaching the VA's low threshold of proof required of veterans, VA insisted it would continue with the ongoing IOM study thus delaying eventual claim approvals and blocking VA medical care for over one more year.
4.  Faced with a growing body of evidence submitted by veterans, VA's Director of Compensation and Pension minimized it as "a few items" when the total was over one hundred different proofs from multiple federal agencies, state governments, scientists and physicians. VA then characterized the small body of evidence it had as "an overwhelming preponderance of evidence," principally VA staff, VA web pages, a Dow-sponsored scientist's letter, a Monsanto-sponsored scientist's letter, and own VA's $600,000 no bid sole source Agent Orange consultant who had earlier denigrated the C-123 veterans as "trash-haulers, freeloaders looking for a tax-free dollar from a sympathetic congressman," telling his VA customers to "hold the line" against C-123 veterans' claims.
5. Faced with a large body of veterans' evidence, VA responded with a contract for its consultant to prepare monographs with a principal focus of blocking C-123 exposure claims. The contractor was paid $600,000 on his no-bid sole source contract to obstruct C-123 claims. Veterans sought but were permitted no VA assistance preparing their claims. and were left to their own means.
6. VBA characterized all non-physician scientists as unqualified to comment in support of C-123
veterans' claims, instead citing its own VA non-physician scientists as the only proper authorities. Federal courts have ruled that toxicologists are qualified to comment on medical nexus and excluding their input is an abuse of agency discretion and unfair to claimants.
7. Faced with one veteran's numerous proofs for exposure (the local VA office termed it a "plethora of evidence" but VA minimized the dozens of documents as "a few") VBA Director of Compensation and Pension directed a denial by stating, "In conclusion there is no conclusive evidence of TCDD (the toxin in Agent Orange) causing adverse health effects." VA later termed this "an unfortunate choice of words" but allowed it to serve for denying the claim. VA thus denied the Agent Orange claim under the Agent Orange Act with its response that Agent Orange is harmless.
8. In the years C-123 veterans have sought assistance proving their claims, not a single offer of help or suggestion or assistance in any form has been permitted by VA.
9. VA withheld its internal documents in denial of Freedom of Information Act requests. Ignoring requests for years finally had VA end up in the US District Court of Washington DC, where agreement was reached to finally release most of the materials. This release was minimal before the Institute of Medicine conducted its C-123 committee work, and only began in earnest after the IOM report was concluded and the VA information of less use to the veterans. As VA is specifically charged with helping veterans locate government documents helpful to claims, this specifically abused the veterans' rights to Due Process as well as under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act.
10. Because the issue of exposure was pivotal, VA redefined "exposure" in a unique and unscientific manner differing even from other VA agencies and Federal health and science agencies, as well as in conflict with VA's standard medical dictionary. The new VA definition of exposure would exclude virtually every exposure from VA coverage, such as Ebola.

Finally, veterans should have only had to submit their claims, and not argue against the VA for these past four years. VA should have been and was charged with being the veterans' advocate, handling claims in a paternalistic and pro-veteran manner. Instead, as VA told the Associated Press, "We have to draw the line somewhere," and that "somewhere" was over the bodies of C-123 exposure victims.

Why such push-back against just 2100 men and women C-123 veterans? Because VA had an attitude of no more Agent Orange claims, plus perhaps a prejudice against Reserve Component servicemembers. Certainly, veterans blocked from VA medical care for so many years saved millions in hospital costs and other benefits, and prevented even more veterans from swamping the already-limited VA patient care capacity. VA even managed to block retroactive disability compensation by setting the effective date of its new C-123 regulation as June 19, 2015 rather than the date of claim submission as with other disability claims.

Veterans now can hope that VA will process their C-123 exposure claims sometime soon, but every C-123 veteran not otherwise eligible is still forbidden all VA medical care and other benefits until then. Not a single C-123 veteran's claim has ever been honored, even though the Institute of Medicine C-123 Committee determined in January 2015 that their claims were correct from the very beginning.

This wasn't David against Goliath: This was David against hordes of the Philistine giants! "We have to draw the line somewhere," they were shouting!

American Legion Statement on New C-123 Veterans' Agent Orange Exposure Rules

C-123 veterans awarded benefit eligibility


C-123 veterans awarded benefit eligibility
After a tumultuous uphill battle, some Air Force Reserve veterans will finally be able to receive disability benefits to cover Agent Orange exposure while serving around Fairchild C-123 aircraft. VA announced the decision during a closed-door meeting with The American Legion and a handful of other veterans service organizations, effective June 19. The decision is projected to result in the awarding of over $47 million in disability benefits over the next 10 years; the decision may slightly add to VA’s backlog of disability claims.
Affected individuals, not otherwise eligible for VA healthcare benefits, will also be afforded access to medical care and survivor benefits once supporting documentation is provided indicating herbicide exposure. Previously used to spray herbicides during the Vietnam War, reservists utilized the aircraft from 1969 to 1986 to transport cargo and medical supplies.
VA’s denials of claims associated with C-123 aircraft were based upon the premise that reservists were not exposed to the toxic herbicide. Nearly one month ago, VA Secretary Robert McDonald agreed to recognize the findings of a January 2015 study by the Institute of Medicine revealing that reservists were exposed to the contaminant at levels that would impact their health. After an initial indication that VA would grant the presumptive exposure, VA delayed its implementation of the policy. The failure to implement the policy garnered national attention after three senators placed a hold on the nomination of David Shulkin, M.D., for Under Secretary for Health until a formal announcement of the change in policy regarding C-123 aircraft.
“Our sense of relief is tempered by the grief felt for lost comrades,” said retired Maj. Wesley Carter, president of the C-123 Veterans Association. “It is also tempered with memories of well-funded and adversarial actions employed against our claims by the VA. Every medical and scientific fact that convinced the Institute of Medicine of our Agent Orange exposures in 2014 had been presented to the VA years earlier, but was ignored.”
Carter attributed the success of the campaign to The American Legion and other supporters who rallied behind the association. Though VA’s announcement signifies a major victory, Carter added that VA leaders need to review their actions to ensure that veterans exposed to toxins no longer “face such an unhappy struggle.”
More information can be found by visiting the VA’s website.
Veterans are also encouraged to call (800) 749-8387 for more information, or email VSCC123.VAVBASPL@va.gov.
- See more at: http://www.legion.org/veteransbenefits/228319/c-123-veterans-awarded-benefit-eligibility#sthash.viacKJEn.dpuf

Pretty accurate news report covering C-123 exposures, from The Resident.

C-123 Veterans Comment in Federal Register re: VA C-123 Rules

Thank you for creating a comment, your feedback is important. We have successfully submitted your comment to Regulations.gov for review by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Your comment tracking number is below and is publicly posted by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Comment Tracking Number: 1jz-8jll-4wa2
Below are details on the comment you submitted:
A Rule by the Department of Veterans Affairs
Document URL
https://www.federalregister.gov/a/2015-14995
Published On
06/19/2015
Comment Submission Date
06/24/2015 at 05:41 AM
First Name
Wesley
Last Name
Carter
Mailing Address
Chair, The C-123 Veterans AssociationMailing Address 2
City
Fort Collins
Country
United States
State or Province
Colorado
ZIP/Postal Code
80524
Phone Number
9712419322
Fax Number
Organization Name
C-123 Veterans Association
Submitter's Representative
Wes Carter, Chair

Comment
VA Office of General Counsel provided two earlier precedential opinions on Reservists exposed or injured during ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA with subsequent injury noted only after conclusion of military service. In both binding opinions the Reservists were correctly deemed "veterans" per the statute and provided appropriate medical care and other benefits.
These decisions closely parallel that of the C-123 veterans. These OGC opinions should govern the Secretary's response to the Jan 8 2015 Institute of Medicine which the Secretary has acknowledged. No new legislation was needed as discussed with VA OGC on April 16 2015, when it was also pointed out that the lack of retroactivity was unacceptable and inappropriate, especially given VA's years of delay, obstruction of evidence and infringement on the veterans' rights to Due Process. While the Secretary may consider a new regulation an effective instrument for responding to these veterans' service-connected disabilities vice legislation, any such regulation must account for the earliest date of claims for exposure as with other veterans' claims. In no event should a date later than 1 January 2012 be considered, and as with other disability claims no award should be made to predate the claim itself.
Veterans' rights to property (here, any disability compensation associated with their service-connected illnesses for the period of the date their Agent Orange exposure claims were submitted and the regulation's proposed date of June 19 2015) are wrongly abridged by the proposed regulation and the arbitrary date of June 29 2015 for its effect, in violation of the Due Process Clause in the Fifth Amendment.
VA should not "benefit" through its actions in delaying valid disability claims by prohibiting veterans from retroactive compensation. Veterans cannot recover medical and other expenses incurred before service connection is awarded and the loss of other vital benefits, but there is no basis for VA withholding retroactive disability compensation. In this case, we also note the immense body of evidence submitted by the veterans, to include the March 2013 Joint Services Records Research Center confirmation of C-123 veterans' exposure, which VA did not act on or provide veterans in violation of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act and also VA's own regulation VAM21-1MR.
Please see the attached discussion, well-presented by the Yale University School of Law Veterans Legal Clinic.
Uploaded Files
Letter re Reservists-signed (1) copy 2.pdf
Yale Legal Brief C-123K Veterans copy.pdf

VA Explains How It Arranged to Avoid Retroactive Benefits. An Exercise in Disappointments!

(from email received from Veterans Benefits Administration on Tuesday June 23; Names redacted and quoted by permission)
Wes, I've been working on the C-123 issues on behalf of Dave Mxxxx and Dave’s asked me to respond directly to you.  
Unfortunately, VA will not be able to extend any retroactive effect to Reservists’ disability compensation based on exposure to Agent Orange aboard C-123s.  
The June 19th rulemaking was needed to establish Veteran status for Reservists based on the presumption that Agent Orange disabilities were incurred during active or inactive duty training, even though symptoms may have first manifested decades later.  
That rule was necessary to grant benefits, and so it is “liberalizing” and subject to the effective date provisions Congress enacted in 38 USC 5110(g), which provides that: 
Subject to the provisions of section 5101 of this title, where compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension is awarded or increased pursuant to any Act or administrative issue, the effective date of such award or increase shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found but shall not be earlier than the effective date of the Act or administrative issue. In no event shall such award or increase be retroactive for more than one year from the date of application therefor or the date of administrative determination of entitlement, whichever is earlier. 
Under the statute cited above, VA can pay Reservists C-123 Agent Orange claims as early as June 19, 2015 if those claims are submitted, or initiated online via eBenefits.va.gov, by phoning 1-800-827-1000, or at a VA Regional Office public contact center, before June 19, 2016 
We would urge any Veteran, former Reservist or Survivor whose C-123 Agent Orange claim was previously denied to submit a reopened claim for consideration under the liberalized rule. Former Reservists whose claims or appeals are pending right now will be entitled to benefits as early as June 19, 2015 if their claims are granted. 
We're sympathetic to your position that the VCAA and due process required VA to make available to decisionmakers the 2013 letter from ATSDR to JSRRC, but because C-123 Reservists were not Veterans in the absence of the rule published, and effective, June 19, 2015 rule, VA cannot provide benefits to former Reservists any earlier. 
I’m sure that’s not what you wanted to hear, but we’re bound by the law and the law is pretty clear here.
          /signed/ 

23 June 2015

VA C-123 Hot Line: 1 (800) 749-8387

Use it. They pay for the call, and even with a little rocky startup, VA staffers are trying hard to give vital, expert, reliable information to all callers. Got a question...run it past those experts. In most cases, they can tell you exactly where your claims or appeals are in the system.
VA C-123 Hot Line: 1 (800)  749-8387

Some Names Needed: C-123 veterans whose claims have been denied by BVA

We're looking for a few good losers!

Really! We need to know of our C-123 veterans whose Agent Orange exposure claims have been denied at the local regional office, and whose appeals have also been denied by the Board of Veterans Appeals. For this project,  WE NEED ONLY VETS WHOSE CLAIMS ARE BVA-DENIED!

If that's you, or somebody you know, please drop me a line because we need your help so we can help all our vets with current issues.

VA Web Pages Dealing With C-123 Changes

Current VA C-123 web pages...obviously changing as Friday's new rule covering presumptive
eligibility gets circulated and VA staff are trained.

www.publichealth.va.gov/​exposures/​agentorange/​locations/​residue-c123-aircraft/​scientific-review.asp
Scientific Review of Agent Orange in C-123 Aircraft Public Health Scientific Review of Agent Orange in C-123 Aircraft VA asked the Institute
www.publichealth.va.gov/​exposures/​agentorange/​locations/​residue-c123-aircraft
in adverse health effects in C-123 crew members. IOM released its report, Post-Vietnam Dioxin Exposure in Agent Orange-Contaminated C-123 Aircraft,
www.publichealth.va.gov/​exposures/​agentorange/​publications/​institute-of-medicine.asp
and herbicide use. Recent reports IOM released Post-Vietnam Dioxin Exposure in Agent Orange-Contaminated C-123 Aircraft on Jan. 9, 2015. VA has
www.publichealth.va.gov/​exposures/​agentorange/​locations
in the Vietnam War Possible exposure of crew members to herbicide residue in C-123 planes flown after the Vietnam War
www.blogs.va.gov...xposed-to-contaminated-c-123-aircraft
C-123 aircraft VA expands disability benefits for Air Force personnel exposed to contaminated C-123 aircraft Media Relations 5 Posted on Thursday,
www.va.gov/​opa/​pressrel/​pressrelease.cfm?id=2714
to herbicide exposure on C-123s may call VA s special C-123 Hotline at 1-800-749-8387 (available 8 a.m. 9 p.m. EST) or e-mail VSCC123.VAVBASPL
www.benefits.va.gov/​benefits/​factsheets.asp
2015 Top Veterans with Service-Connected Disabilities Automobile and Special Adaptive Equipment Grants Download Posted 02/2015 C-123 Aircraft
www.benefits.va.gov/​compensation/​claims-postservice-agent_orange.asp
were tested and stored outside of Vietnam. Veterans who were crew members on C-123 planes flown after the Vietnam War. Veterans associated with 
www.blogs.va.gov/​vantage/​319/​the-way-we-see-it
7 views VA expands disability benefits for Air Force personnel exposed to contaminated C-123 aircraft Posted on Jun 18, 2015 June 18, 2015 5 comments
www.blogs.va.gov/​vantage/​17744/​10-things-every-veteran-know-agent-orange
countries Agent Orange Residue on Airplanes Used in Vietnam War Possible exposure of crew members to herbicide residue in c-123 planes flown after the war
www.va.gov/​opa/​pressrel
VA Expands Disability Benefits for Air Force Personnel Exposed to Contaminated C-123 Aircraft The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) today

"VA Must Get It Right Next Time" – Springfield Republican Editorial

(Editorial June 20, 2015, The Springfield Republican)

"The men and women who serve their country with military service should never have to plead, beg or lobby for their benefits.


The Department of Veterans Affairs must run efficiently and according to law, but in this case, it emerged as the adversary of the veterans, not their representatives. This, too, cannot be. 

The veterans won a long fight they should not have had to wage. The VA got it right in the end. Its next mission is to get it right in the beginning."

Now, we need an investigative reporter to tell "the rest of the story."

20 June 2015

Retroactivity of the C-123 Agent Orange Rule?

Questions have flooded in since the MILITARY.COM article explaining that claims will not be backdated – made retroactive – and that new claims must be submitted. It certainly is confusing.

But there is hope. In 1989 the US District Court for Northern California issued its Nehmer decision, ordering the VA to take a retrospective view on claims, even if not yet submitted. We have been discussing pro bono assistance to return to that court for resolution on our very parallel situation.

Federal Register Publication of C-123 Agent Orange Veterans Rule



18 June 2015

C-123 Agent Orange Exposure Sites as Acknowledged by VA

  • Active-duty units, Hurlburt Auxiliary Field, Eglin AFB, Florida, 1970-1973
  • Reserve units, Pittsburgh International Airport, Pennsylvania, USAF Reserve Station, 1972-1982
  • Reserve units, Westover Air Force Base, Massachusetts, and Hanscom Field AFB, Massachusetts, 1972-1982
  • Reserve units, Lockbourne/Rickenbacker AFB, Ohio, 1969-1986
  • Active-duty units, Langley AFB, Virginia, 1962-1963, 1970-1973
  • Active-duty units, Luke AFB, Arizona, 1970-1973
  • Active-duty units, Tainan Air Field, Taiwan, 1969-1970
  • Active-duty units, Howard AFB, Panama, 1970-1973
  • Active-duty units, Osan Air Base, South Korea, 1970-1973
  • Active-duty units, Clark AFB, Philippines, 1969-1970

12 June 2015

VBA explains to VHA why it decided to pretend DOD confirmation of C-123 veterans' exposures never existed

VA Claims Processing Violates VCAA
On 12 March 2013 Veterans Benefits Administration (Agent Orange Desk) received the first Department of Defense/Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) confirmation of C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure.

And then VA cheated us. Determined for our exposure claims to fail, VBA Agent Orange desk breached both its duty to assist and duty to notify (of the JSRRC records) by personally waiving the VA duty to follow VAM21-1MR. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that, "[w]here the rights of individuals are affected, it is incumbent upon agencies to follow their own procedures. VA hasn't.

 Like every other piece of evidence confirming C-123 veterans' exposures, the JSRRC message was disregarded. VBA acknowledges only arguments against the veterans' claims, as one can still see on their web pages.

VBA cited input to substantiate its position from Dr. Al Young (the VA $600,000 no-bid sole source contractor,) plus two scientists sponsored by Dow and Monsanto for their input. Their input (all paid for) plus the VA web page stating the veterans weren't exposed, amounted to VBA "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" against input confirming the veterans' exposures submitted by CDC, DOD/ATSDR, NIH, USPHS, NIEHS, VA physicians, university researchers and dozens of scientists and physicians, all unpaid and voluntarily offered.

On 12 March 2013, VBA answered the Veterans Health Administration Post Deployment Health Section question about why the Agent Orange Desk decided to disregard the DOD input, considered vital for confirmation of veterans' exposure claims.

The VA has a statutory duty to gather government records for a veteran's use substantiating a claim ("duty to assist.") Here, VA opts to disregard that duty, as well as its other duties under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act, as well as disregard VA's own VAM21-1MR which has statutory requirements for compliance. "[T]he Secretary must adhere to his own policies when adjudicating veterans' claims." (Morton, 415 U.S. at 235 (1974)). 

Compliance with the M21-1MR by the VA is mandatory for all VA staffers in any VBA or VHA position. A regional office's failure to follow the M21-1MR and the BVA s failure to identify such issues frustrates judicial review, warranting remand: 
See Tucker v. West, 11 Vet. App. 369, 374 (1998) (where "the Board has incorrectly applied the law, failed to provide an adequate statement of its reasons or bases for its determinations, or where the record is otherwise inadequate, a remand is the appropriate remedy."); Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 527 (1995) (holding that the Board's statement "must be adequate to enable claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision, as well as to facilitate review in this Court").
No explanation was offered by VBA – it simply exempted itself from these tiresome legal requirements, and directed veterans' claims and appeals to be denied for want of the very evidence kept hidden by VBA. As of today and since the first of our claims in 2007, not a single one has been permitted despite VBA assurances to all that it has no blanket policy against them.

Right.
Follow the VA's papers! See how VBA disregards Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000:
Standard VBA C-123 claim denial, citing "unable to verify your exposure." This is the need for JSRRC verification of the C-123 veteran's exposure. This is LtCol Paul Bailey's denied claim, Feb 2013, despite two pages of confirmation from several physicians, fellow officers, commanders, scientists, federal agencies, and researchers. This claim was reversed and awarded in August 2013 via Decision Review Officer. 
1. DOD-JSRRC confirmed C-123 veterans' Agent Orange exposure to VBA March 2013. Veterans never learned of this document's existence until May 2015 FOIA releases.
1a. AF confirmation of AF Museum C-123 (Patches, Tail # 362) "heavily contaminated" with Agent Orange
1b. Director CDC Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry confirms C-123 veterans' TCDD exposures = 200/fold increased cancer risk, 182-times military TCDD exposure standards
1b. (continued, signed by Dr. C. Portier, Director, CDC/ATSDR. Later, another email followed with next ATSDR director (Rear Admiral R. Ikeda MD USPHS) concurrence with Sinks' C-123 ATSDR finding.
2. VHS apparently aware of #1, properly inquires about use in claims file for JSRRC message per VAM21-1MR.  VBA says no, and states his refusal to let JSRRC "dictate policy issues to VHA on health care issues." Apparently, referring to JSRRC confirming veterans' exposure to prove their disability claims was seen as DOD "dictating" VA policy."
3. In 2013 VBA Agent Orange desk establishes internal policy to disregard JSRRC input until 2015, in violation of VAM21-1MR procedures on JSRRC input and in violation of VCAA. Of course, had this input from JSRRC  agreed with VBA policy rather than disagree, it would have been  perfectly acceptable as evidence against veterans' claims. VBA is highly selective about what C-123 evidence it recognizes, and acknowledges only evidence that fits VA policies and disputes everything else. 
4. Without bothering to reveal JSRRC confirmation of C-123 exposures received five months earlier, VBA assures Compensation & Pension that VA somewhow has an overwhelming preponderance of evidence against C-123 veterans. Describes other proofs of the C-123 veteran's exposure as "the real problem." Proof is a problem for VA? LtCol Paul Bailey's claim award made via DRO August 2013; SECVA disagreed with decision and tried to reverse the award but didn't; decided "it would be politically unwise."
5a. VHA quoted by the Associated Pressn insisting VA "must draw the line somewhere" to stop Agent Orange exposure claims, May 2014, more than a year after JSRRC exposure confirmation, three years after the Sinks CDC/ATSDR exposure confirmation
5b. Dr. Walters quoted in AP page 2
5c. Dr. Walters' "draw the line" quoted in AP, page 3
From: Kruse, John (VACO)


[mailto:John.xxxxa.gov] 
  
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 2:21 PM 
To: Tucker, Brooks (Burr)
Cc: Lindsay, Jason; OCLA Benefits Team 
Subject: jk2427: Sen Burr ATDSR Question 
Good afternoon.  VBA has provided the following response.  Please let me know if you  have additional questions.Regards 
John E. Kruse, Director, Benefits Legislative Service Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs June 6, 2014 (202) 461-xxxx  
Burr Request: I understand the procedural requirement for JSRRC to provide VA with only "DoD documents", however, if VA has addressed this matter in good faith for veterans, it would seem incumbent upon VA to insist that DoD turn over all relevant information in its file regarding C-123 exposure concerns that could potentially assist VA's knowledge of the issue or at least request documents DoD has received from within the Federal government from subject matter experts familiar with the C-123 issue.The attached letter from ATSDR sent to JSRRC Director last year is clearly such information. Relative to the prior RFI and this ongoing issue, please let us know, before 9 June 2014,if the attached letter been received at VBA from JSRRC and if it has not been, has VBA requested the letter from JSRRC?  
VA Response:  VBA is committed to a fair and impartial evaluation of all disability claims, including those from Veterans associated with post-Vietnam C-123 aircraft.  The letters referred to by Mr. Tucker and Mr. Carter were provided to VBA by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and by Mr. Carter and were evaluated by Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical scientists and public health experts.   
6a.  June 2014, Email answer from VA Congressional Liaison to Senator Burr’s questions. VA still denies JSRRC confirmation and disputes ATSDR finings by simply not mentioning C-123 200-fold greater cancer risk. One year later claims remain denied even with IOM report. VBA simply avoids answering Burr's inquiry about why JSRRC materials were not provided veterans for their claims or acted upon by C&P. 
(continued)This evaluation contributed to VA’s decision to create the current VHA C-123 website
http://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/locations/residue-c123-aircraft/index.asp), which explains that dried and solidified TCDD cannot be absorbed by the human body in any significant amount, and that there is no scientific evidence supporting long-term health effects from association with an environment containing such dried and solidified TCDD. 
The letters under consideration were solicited by Mr. Carter from government agencies and refer to an amount of TCDD that was obtained from one C-123 aircraft by vigorous rubbing with a strong solvent.  This amount was then compared to an industry standard for exposure to environmentally “active” TCDD and, as described in the
Letter Mr. Tucker forwarded, ATSDR concluded that this solvent-extracted amount exceeded the active TCDD industrial safety standard and therefore “TCDD exposure” occurred.  Due to the conflicting scientific opinions on this issue, VA contracted with the Institute of Medicine to review all available studies and literature and report its findings later this year. 
However, Compensation Service has been notified that JSRRC has begun providing these letters, or summaries of their content, to VBA regional offices for consideration in claims based on association with post-Vietnam C-123 aircraft.  In particular, information from these letters was provided to the Portland VA Regional Office for consideration of an appeal filed by Mr. Carter.  
6b. (Continued.)