Citation Nr: 18134305 Decision Date: 09/12/18 Archive Date: 09/12/18 DOCKET NO. 15-17 911 DATE: September 12, 2018 ORDER Service connection for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuritis (CIPD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT An informed expert medical nexus opinion links CIPD to the Veteran’s exposure to aviation fuels during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a grant of service connection for CIPD related to aviation fuel exposure have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1974 to June 1977. The Veteran presented sworn hearing testimony during a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in August 2018. This decision is being made under the One Touch program, based upon review of the entire claims file and the undersigned’s recollection of the hearing testimony. A transcript of the hearing will be associated with the claims file at a later time. The Board acknowledges the September 4, 2018 request for a copy of the hearing transcript but, given the complete grant of benefits awarded below, the Board opts to issue the award of benefits rather than wait for completion of the hearing transcript which may take a significant time to fulfill. The Veteran contends that while performing his service duties as a helicopter and aviation mechanic, he was exposed to toxic levels of aviation fuel, which is known to cause neurological impairment. He asserts that his currently-shown CIDP was caused by this exposure. In seeking VA disability compensation, a Veteran generally seeks to establish that a current disability results from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. “Service connection” basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish a right to compensation for a present disability on a direct basis, a Veteran must show: “(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service.” Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Once the evidence has been assembled, it is the Board’s responsibility to evaluate the record. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). When there is an approximate balance of evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. In Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990), the Court stated that “a veteran need only demonstrate that there is an ‘approximate balance of positive and negative evidence’ in order to prevail.” To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996), citing Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. The Veteran’s service treatment records are negative for any neurological complaints or findings. CIPD was initially diagnosed in 2006 and 2007, approximately thirty years after service. Current impairment from CIPD is well-documented in the Veteran’s medical records. In the effort to substantiate the Veteran’s claim, the VA obtained two different medical opinions. The first reviewer performed a clinical examination of the Veteran in addition to a review of his claims file. This reviewer, in an opinion dated in March 2015 concluded that the Veteran’s neurological disease is at least as likely as not related to his aviation fuel exposure during active service. The second opinion, dated later in March 2015, reflects that the second reviewer searched medical literature for studies substantiating a connection between aviation fuel and neurological symptoms. According to the author, the available medical literature supported an association between fuel exposure and neurologic symptoms; although the author cautioned that a statistical association does not establish a cause and effect relationship. This reviewer then concluded that it is not likely the Veteran’s neurological disease is related to service. Neither reviewer provided much supporting rationale or explanation for their opposing conclusions; although both reviewers appear to have performed a conscientious review of the Veteran’s file and medical records. Notably, the Veteran has submitted a copy of medical opinions on a similar case previously before the Board which cites studies linking JP-4 to peripheral neuropathy, and a VA opinion in that case noting that JP-4 may cause neurotoxicity including neuropathy. Thus, there is some research showing that JP-4 may cause neurotoxic injury. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has recognized the Board’s “authority to discount the weight and probity of evidence in light of its own inherent characteristics and its relationship to other items of evidence.” Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, according the Veteran every benefit of the doubt, as required by law, the Board holds that service connection for CIPD is warranted. The evidence, especially the positive medical nexus opinion, supports the claim and the appeal is granted. See Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 531 (2014) (“By requiring only an ‘approximate balance of positive and negative evidence’ the Nation, ‘in recognition of our debt to our veterans,’ has ‘taken upon itself the risk of error’ in awarding... benefits.”). T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Heather J. Harter