Skip to main content
For Immediate Help: 800-544-9144
Court Wins

CCK Helps Vietnam War Era Veteran Secure Benefits for Prostate Cancer After VA Error

Michael Lostritto

November 3, 2021

Updated: May 20, 2026

    Rate this Article

    Please note that all fields are optional. Thank you.

    CCK Law: Our Vital Role in Veterans Law

    Facts of the Case

    The Veteran served in the Air Force from June 1971 to June 1975. Throughout his service, the Veteran worked as a Weapons Mechanic at the Udorn and Korat Air Force Bases in Thailand

    In 2012, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for prostate cancer, erectile dysfunction, arrhythmia, and bladder issues. The RO issued a rating decision in 2014 denying the claim. The Veteran filed a new claim for service connection for prostate cancer and arrhythmia in August 2015.

    A December 2015 rating decision denied the claim. The Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement in January of 2016. In November 2017, a Statement of the Case denied the claim again.

    CCK Pursues Benefits on Veteran’s Behalf

    In December 2017, CCK began representing the Veteran. CCK filed a VA9 Appeal on December 27, 2017. In May 2019, the BVA granted service connection for prostate cancer.

    A September rating decision then granted a 100 percent rating for the prostate cancer status post prostatectomy associated with herbicide exposure. They also granted service connection for erectile dysfunction, surgical scars, and SMC for loss of use of a creative organ.

    CCK Submits Appeal for Earlier Effective Date

    Although the Veteran was awarded service connection, the effective date only went back to 2015. CCK knew the Veteran should be eligible for an earlier effective date. As such, CCK filed a Higher-Level Review appeal on August 31, 2020.

    CCK asserted that the Veteran, after filing the first claim in 2012, was denied on the basis that VA could not document exposure to Agent Orange or other herbicides during his service. However, when VA did grant service connection, it meant the original denial of the 2012 claim was erroneous.

    As outlined under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), VA is required to reconsider a claim if new and relevant documentation, which was not associated with the veteran’s claims file at the time of the initial decision, is submitted.

    CCK submitted new and relevant documentation in the form of an official transcript from the Air Force Historical Research Agency regarding Agent Orange use at the Udorn Royal Thai Air Force, a field manual detailing the tactical deployment of herbicides in 1971, and a redacted copy of a memorandum from the DoD concerning Armed Forces Pest Management. This documentation proved crucial in establishing service connection.

    While the Veteran’s 2012 denial was never appealed, the fact that VA went on to acknowledge herbicide exposure and grant service connection meant the original 2012 claim needed to be reconsidered. The Veteran was eligible for an effective date as early as 2012.

    Veteran Awarded Substantial Benefits

    Finally, in February 2021, the regional office issued a rating decision that established that a clear and unmistakable error was made in the denial of the Veteran’s original 2012 claim. As such, the Veteran was awarded benefits for a 100 percent rating for prostate cancer and SMC based on loss of use of a creative organ dating back to February 28, 2012.

    The grants of service connection for erectile dysfunction and surgical scars were also upheld in the decision.

    With CCK’s help, the Veteran was awarded the benefits he was entitled to, stemming back to when he filed his first claim for prostate cancer in 2012.

    About the Author

    Bio photo of Michael Lostritto

    Michael is a Partner at Chisholm, Chisholm & Kilpatrick. He joined CCK Law in September 2016 and previously served as Supervising Attorney and most recently as a Managing Attorney in the firm’s Veterans Law practice. As a VA-accredited attorney, Michael’s area of practice focuses exclusively on the representation of disabled veterans and their families before the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).

    See more about Michael