Citation Nr: A20005798 Decision Date: 04/16/20 Archive Date: 04/16/20 DOCKET NO. 200106-55327 DATE: April 16, 2020 ORDER Readjudication of the claim for service connection for Parkinson's disease is warranted. Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's disease is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In an unappealed November 2017 rating decision, the Veteran was denied service connection for Parkinson’s disease. 2. New evidence was received after the November 2017 denial that is relevant to the issue of entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease. 3. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease. 4. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his Parkinson’s disease is related to his active duty service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for readjudicating the claim of entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's disease have been met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1960 to January 1964. In a July 2019 rating decision, the RO found that new and relevant evidence had not been submitted to reopen the Veteran’s claim for service connection for Parkinson's disease. In a July 2019 Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995), the Veteran elected to appeal the RO's decision via the Supplemental Claim lane in accordance with the AMA. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156 (d), 3.2501. If new and relevant evidence, as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501 (a)(1), is presented or secured with respect to the supplemental claim, the agency of original jurisdiction will readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record. In October 2019, the RO found that the Veteran did not submit new and relevant evidence. In a January 2020 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (VA Form 10182), the Veteran timely appealed that decision to the Board and requested evidence submission to be reviewed by a Veterans Law Judge. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. In the October 2019 AMA decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) found that the Veteran had a current diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease. The Board is bound by this favorable finding. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). 1. New and Relevant Evidence The Veteran is seeking service connection for the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease. VA will readjudicate a claim if new and relevant evidenced is presented or secured. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d). “Relevant evidence” is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a matter in issue. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1). The question in this case is whether the Veteran submitted new and relevant evidence after the prior final denial of his claim for service connection for Parkinson’s disease. In November 2017, the AOJ confirmed and continued the previous denials of entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease in the legacy system. Although the Veteran initiated an appeal with that decision, he ultimately did not file a timely appeal to the Board. See RO Letter to the Veteran, dated May 7, 2019. He submitted a petition to reopen his claim in June 2019. The Board finds that new evidence was submitted after the prior final rating decision in the legacy system that is relevant to the Veteran’s claim. Specifically, the Veteran submitted a July 2019 private nexus opinion. In light of this evidence, which may prove the nexus element of the claim for service connection for Parkinson’s disease, readjudication of the claim is warranted. 2. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent medical or lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Veteran asserts that his Parkinson’s disease is the result of his in-service exposure to trichloroethylene (TCE). See April 2019 Correspondence. At the outset, the Board finds that the Veteran’s has a current diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease, as reflected in the favorable findings of the July 2019 and October 2019 rating decisions. The Veteran’s DD 214 and service personnel records reflect that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was that of an aircraft mechanic. The Veteran has consistently stated that he was exposed to TCE during his service while performing maintenance on aircraft equipment without protective equipment. See September 2016 Statement in Support of Claim; April 2019 Correspondence. The Board finds the Veteran’s statements regarding his use of TCE to clean aircraft during service are competent and credible; thus, establishing that he was exposed to at least some level of TCE during service. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Therefore, the only remaining question is whether the Veteran’s in-service exposure to TCE caused his Parkinson’s disease. In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted a September 2017 statement by his neurologist, Dr. D.H.C. Dr. D.H.C. opined that it was more likely than not that the Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease was directly caused by his in-service TCE exposure. Dr. D.H.C. stated that TCE has a definite relationship to Parkinson’s disease. See September 2017 Dr. D.H.C. Statement. A July 2019 statement by the Veteran’s neurologist, Dr. M.S., opined it was at least as likely as not that his Parkinson’s disease is the direct result of his exposure to industrial solvents during his military service. In support of this opinion, Dr. M.S. referred to several medical studies which indicate a relationship between solvents and the development of Parkinson’s. Dr. M.S. further rationalized that the Veteran has no other known risk factors which may have caused his Parkinson’s disease. See July 2019 Dr. M. S. Statement. The Board notes that there is a negative etiological opinion of record. A June 2017 VA examiner opined it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease was caused by his active duty service, reasoning that peer reviewed literature found inconclusive proof that TCE causes Parkinson’s disease. See June 2017 Medical Opinion Disability Benefits Questionnaire. In light of the above, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease is related to his active duty service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for Parkinson’s disease is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. M. Stedman, Associate Counsel 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.