Citation Nr: 1304674 Decision Date: 02/08/13 Archive Date: 02/19/13 DOCKET NO. 10-23 128 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for squamous cell carcinoma of the groin, to include as due to exposure to ionizing radiation. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Bridgid D. Cleary, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1988 to June 1994. This matter has come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2008 rating decision of the Jackson, Mississippi, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2012, at the St. Petersburg, Florida RO (who has jurisdiction of the case file). A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. In addition to the paper claims file, there is a Virtual VA paperless claims file associated with the Veteran's claim. A review of the documents in such file reveals that they are either duplicative of the evidence in the paper claims file or are irrelevant to the issue on appeal. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran was exposed to ionizing radiation through his work as a nuclear electronics technician on the U.S.S. Roosevelt from 1990 to 1994. While this is not one of the radiation risk activities contemplated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 1112(c )(3), his service records do show in-service exposure to ionizing radiation with a lifetime total effect dosage equivalent of 0.253 rem. The Veteran was diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma of the groin in September 2003. He had a recurrence in December 2007. Squamous cell carcinoma is a type of skin cancer and therefore is a "radiogenic disease" listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(b)(2). Thus, referral of this claim to the Under Secretary of Benefits is necessary. The RO sought and obtained an opinion from Compensation and Pension Services regarding whether a relationship exists between the disease and the Veteran's exposure in service. Unfortunately, there seems to be some confusion as to the timeline. Specifically, the Board notes that the Veteran's last documented in-service exposure was May 1994 and his first diagnosis of squamous cell carcinoma was September 2003, nine years later. In a March 2008 letter to Compensation and Pension Services, the RO mistakenly noted a shorter period of service aboard the U.S.S. Roosevelt and indicated that the time lapse between exposure and onset of the disease was 14 years based on this incorrect 1990 end date. In the September 2008 Radiation Review, the Director of Compensation and Pension Services similarly noted an incorrect timeline, stating that skin cancer was diagnosed 13 years after occupational exposure to ionizing radiation. It also appears that this 1990 date was used to calculate the probability of causation. Insofar as this discrepancy could alter the findings regarding the likelihood that a relationship exists between the Veteran's skin cancer and the exposure in service, further clarification is necessary. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Refer this claim to the Under Secretary of Benefits for the determination of whether the Veteran's radiogenic disease of squamous cell carcinoma of the groin is related to ionizing radiation exposure while in service. The Under Secretary of Benefits must also determine whether an expert opinion from the Under Secretary for Health as contemplated in 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(c) or referral to an outside consultant for a medical opinion as contemplated by 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(d) is deemed appropriate in this case to ascertain whether sound scientific and medical evidence supports the conclusion that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's squamous cell carcinoma of the groin resulted from exposure to radiation in service. In determining whether an additional opinion is necessary, the Under Secretary of Benefits' attention is directed to the incorrectly stated time lapse between exposure and onset of the disease that was used in the previous calculations and opinions. 2. After completion of the above, the AMC should review the Veteran's claim in light of any new evidence. If the claim is not granted, the Veteran should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and be afforded an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for appellate review. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ J. A. MARKEY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).