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 herbicidecontaminant dioxin, which could only be obtained and measured by rubbing the interiormetal surface with the solvent hexane, You have stated that the dioxin obtained by thisprocess is sufficient to establish that the crewmembers were "exposed." However, thescientists and medical doctors of the VA Office of Public Health have documented withscientific literature that residual trace amounts of dioxin on metal surfaces is notbiologically available for skin absorption or inhalation because it is not water or sweatsoluble and does not give off airborne particles. As a result, they have concluded that thelikelihood of dioxin exposure was minimal, Your view of potential exposure must beweighed against their view when VA evaluates a disability claim.In addition to the issue of potential exposure, there is the issue of establishing amedical nexus or link between the in-service event of flying on a post-Vietnam C-123aircraft and development of a current Agent Orange exposure-related disease. VA lawsand policies related to Agent Orange exposure, whether presumptive or based on facts-found evidence, address exposure contact that occurs during the actual spraying orhandling of the dioxin-containing liquid herbicide. There are no provisions for secondaryor remote exposure, as is the case with dried dioxin residuals on metal surfaces foundmany years after the liquid state. The scientific evidence available to establish a medicalnexus in these cases is limited and the VA Office of Public Health has provided a medicalopinion that it is insufficient to establish the required nexus. While your letter focuses onthe issue of potential dioxin exposure, it does not offer an opinion on the medical nexusissue nor does it address the potential for long-term health effects or disabilities resultingfrom service on the post-Vietnam C-123 aircraftAnother issue you raised is the wording of the Agent Orange Act of 1991, whichestablishes a presumption of exposure to "herbicide agents" used in Vietnam thatincludes chemicals other than dioxin. You state that consideration should be given tothese other chemicals when considering disability compensation based on exposurebecause they may have been present in the post-Vietnam C-I23 aircraft, However, sincethere is no presumption of exposure to any herbicide agents without Vietnam service, thislegislation is not applicable. Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences' Instituteof Medicine, which is named in this legislation as a major source of scientific informationrelated to herbicide agent exposure and its adverse health effects, has determined thatdioxin is the primary "chemical of interest" associated with adverse health effects. If adisability claim were based on exposure to other herbicide agents, the same evidence ofdirect facts-found exposure and a medical nexus would be required for serviceconnection.
We appreciate your input and the evidence you have provided on the issue ofdisability compensation for Veterans who served aboard post-Vietnam C-123 aircraft.When VA receives claims from Veterans based on this service, they will be evaluatedbased on the totality of the evidence, as described above, and determinations will bemade on a case-by-case basis.
/signed/Thomas Murphy, Director of Compensation Services
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder