Citation Nr: 20006828 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/27/20 DOCKET NO. 19-18 624A DATE: January 28, 2020 ORDER Service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death is granted FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran died in December 2017; the immediate cause of death was adenocarcinoma of the prostate. 2. The Veteran had active service in the Southwest Asia theatre of operations during the Persian Gulf War wherein he was likely exposed to environmental hazards and other toxins. 3. The Veteran’s cause of death was casually related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death have been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. § 1310; 38 C.F.R. § 3.312. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from November 1987 to July 1991, June 2004 to December 2005, March 2009 to February 2011, and from June 2011 to September 2011, to include service in Southwest Asia. The Veteran was in receipt of a Combat Action Badge and Bronze Star, among other decorations. The Veteran died in December 2017. The appellant is the Veteran’s surviving spouse who was properly substituted in this claim. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2018 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The appellant asserts that the Veteran’s death was related to his in-service exposure to environmental toxins, to include radiation and toxins from burn pits. A review of the record shows that the Veteran died in December 2017. The immediate cause of the Veteran’s death was listed as adenocarcinoma of the prostate; no underlying causes of death or other significant conditions contributing to death, but not resulting in the underlying causes of death, were noted. The appellant has submitted two separate private medical opinions in support of her claim. In a December 2017 opinion, Brigade Surgeon Dr. Lucenti opined that it was more likely than not that the Veteran’s prostate cancer was related to his in-service exposure to depleted uranium. In reaching this conclusion, Dr. Lucenti commented that he had known and worked alongside the Veteran for several years and indicated that he had also reviewed the Veteran’s claims file and had interviewed fellow soldiers who had served with the Veteran in order to determine the extent of which, if any, the Veteran may have been exposed to depleted uranium. Based on this information, Dr. Lucenti stated that the Veteran likely had significant exposure to depleted uranium in the form of reactive tank armor and by virtue of living in a region of Iraq for 12 months that was exposed to armor piercing rounds and destroyed tanks. In the February 2019 private opinion, Dr. Pomerantz opined that the most likely cause of the Veteran’s prostate cancer was in-service exposure to environmental toxins. In reaching this conclusion, Dr. Pomerantz commented that the majority of men diagnosed with prostate cancer were over the age of 65 and that it was unusual for a male under the age of 50 to develop a lethal form of prostate cancer. Based on the Veteran’s age at the time of death, younger than 50, the examiner reported that the Veteran’s prostate cancer was therefore likely to be related to environmental toxins. In a May 2019 VA medical opinion, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s in-service exposure to environmental toxins caused or substantially and materially contributed to the Veteran’s death from adenocarcinoma of the prostate. The examiner proceeded to state that there was no evidence of his above mentioned opinion. In support of his opinion, the examiner also commented that 1990 percent of prostate cancer occur in males over 50. The examiner also discussed other causes of prostate cancer in general with no notation of whether such causes were applicable to the Veteran. The Board is unable to interpret the May 2019 medical opinion as to adequately assess it. As such, the Board finds that the May 2019 VA opinion is inadequate, and it has little probative value. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993). Conversely, the Board finds that the December 2017 and February 2019 private opinion reports are adequate because the physicians reviewed the medical history of the Veteran and discussed relevant evidence, considered the contentions of the appellant, and provided supporting rationales for the conclusions reached. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007). As such, the December 2017 and February 2019 private opinion reports are the most probative evidence of record. (Continued on the next page)   Therefore, the Board finds that preponderance of the evidence is for the claim, and entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher O'Donnell The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.