Citation Nr: 1320323 Decision Date: 06/24/13 Archive Date: 07/02/13 DOCKET NO. 09-03 390 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for prostate cancer. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran and his sister ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Mac, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1968 to July 1970. This matter initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2007 rating decision issued by the RO. In February 2013 the Veteran testified at a hearing held at the RO before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of hearing transcript is attached to the Virtual VA paperless claims processing system. Other documents in the Virtual VA paperless claims processing system are either duplicative of the evidence of record or are not pertinent to the present appeal. The appeal is being remanded to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required on his part. REMAND The VA treatment records show that the Veteran was diagnosed with prostate cancer in March 2006 and in July 2006 underwent a radical retropubic prostatectomy. In April 2008, the Veteran claimed that his prostate cancer was related to his service aboard the USS Forrestal, to include exposure to lead based paint, asbestos and other hazardous chemicals. In February 2013, the Veteran testified that he was an airman apprentice and was involved in flight operations aboard the aircraft carrier and was exposed to various chemicals. He also stated that he handled fires and was exposed to fumes and fuels without the proper protection. During the hearing, the Veteran testified that he did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam and reported that urologists have told him that his prostate cancer might be related to his exposure to chemicals during service. The Veteran submitted a copy of The Navy Flight Surgeon's Handbook, Chapter 21, which showed that cadmium, an elemental metal, could cause prostate cancer. The Handbook explained that aircraft carriers and flight lines harbored a variety of chemical agents that might have toxicological properties, to include plastics which become deadly when exposed to fire. The Veteran also submitted an Internet article that provides a history of the USS Forrestal, to include information referable to a fire from a leaking fuel tank in July 1967 that created a massive conflagration. The Veteran also submitted an Internet article that reported that there was asbestos dust on the USS Forrestal. His personnel records show that he was aboard the USS Forrestal from October 1968 to July 1970, when he served as a tractor driver and was responsible for daily turbine maintenance. He also took courses in crash fire truck rescues and flight deck operations. The service treatment records also showed that the Veteran was treated for various urinary problems. As the evidence suggests that there is a possibility that there may be a causal relationship between the Veteran's prostate cancer and the exposure to toxic chemicals during service, he should be afforded a VA examination to determine the likely etiology of the prostate cancer. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should make arrangements to have the Veteran scheduled for a VA examination for the purpose of determining whether it is at least as likely as not (whether there is a 50 percent or greater probability) that his prostate cancer is due to his claimed exposure to toxic chemicals or another event or incident of his period of service. The RO must send the claims file to the appropriate examiner for review, and the examiner must indicate that the claims file was reviewed. The examiner must take a complete history from the Veteran as to the nature and onset of his prostate cancer. For purposes of the opinion being sought, the examiner should specifically address the following: a.) The service treatment records showing in January 1969 that the Veteran was treated for dysuria, in February 1970 that he was treated for burning on urination, and in February 1970 that he was treated for urethritis. b.) The Navy Flight Surgeon's Handbook, Chapter 21, which explains that aircraft carriers harbor a variety of toxic chemicals, such as cadmium, which can cause prostate cancer. The Veteran's assertions of being exposed to lead based paint aboard the USS Forrestal, and the Internet article noting that there was asbestos dust on the USS Forrestal. c.) The Handbook's explanation that plastics become deadly during a fire explosion and the fact that there was a fire aboard the USS Forrestal prior to the service. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the histories provided by the Veteran, the examiner must state this, with a fully reasoned explanation. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion, the examiner must affirm that all procurable and assembled data was fully considered and a detailed rationale must be provided for why an opinion cannot be rendered. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports, must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports, the examiner must provide a reason for doing so. 2. After completing all indicated development, the RO should readjudicate the claim remaining on appeal in light of all the evidence of record. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a fully responsive Supplemental Statement of the Case and afforded a reasonable opportunity for response. Thereafter, if indicated, the case should be returned to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition. No action is required of the Veteran until he is otherwise notified by the RO. By this action, the Board intimates no opinion, legal or factual, as to any ultimate disposition warranted in this case. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter 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). _________________________________________________ STEPHEN L. WILKINS 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).