Citation Nr: 21067950
Decision Date: 11/08/21	Archive Date: 11/08/21

DOCKET NO. 16-59 480
DATE: November 8, 2021

REMANDED

Service connection for acinic cell parotid gland carcinoma, to include as due to ionizing radiation or exposure to carcinogenic chemicals, is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from July 1984 to November 1984 and from January 1985 to April 1988.  

Acinic Cell Parotid Gland Carcinoma

The Board regrets additionally delay. However, prior remands  in December 2018 and July 2021  have instructed that an opinion on the possible link between the Veteran's exposure to chemicals in service and his parotid glad carcinoma be obtained. Prior opinions, including the most recent one in September 2021, have not adequately addressed this issue. Specifically, the September 2021 examiner did not provide adequate reasons for the conclusion that the Veteran's carcinoma was not linked to his in-service exposure to chemicals, in particular to hydrazine. As such, a new examination opinion is warranted.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

Obtain an examination opinion from an oncologist (M.D.) to determine the nature, and etiology of his acinic cell parotid gland carcinoma. A copy of the file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The clinician is requested to offer an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran's acinic cell parotid gland carcinoma is proximately due to or the result of exposure to chemicals, to include hydrazine, during his time in service.

Should the examiner require an in-person examination, one should be scheduled accordingly. 

The Veteran's lay statements regarding onset and continuity of symptomology should be recorded and considered.

Any stated opinion should be supported by a complete rationale. If the clinician cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, this should be so stated along with supporting rationale. In so doing, the clinician shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to the particular question.

 

 

JOHN Z. JONES

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Parrish, 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.