Asbestosis decisions — 2000

The Board found that the veteran's claim for service connection for a respiratory disorder due to asbestos exposure was not well-grounded, as there was no evidence of current disability or link between service and symptoms.

The Board has determined that the veteran's asbestosis is manifested by a Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) of 51-64 percent predicted, which meets the criteria for a 60 percent disability rating under the revised rating schedule. The original and revised rating criteria have been applied to determine this effective date.

The Board found no competent evidence to support the veteran's assertions that he had been exposed to asbestos in connection with his service in an artillery unit, and concluded that a well-grounded claim of service connection for asbestosis as due to claimed exposure to asbestos in service has not been presented.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for stomach ulcers, asbestosis, and disease processes secondary to exposure to petroleum are not well-grounded.

The Board found that the veteran's claim for service connection for asbestosis, claimed as a result of asbestos exposure, is not well grounded due to lack of evidence of current diagnosis of asbestosis.

The Board found that the veteran's asbestosis is not related to his service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for low back disability, residuals of asbestos exposure, and residuals of exposure to toxic materials are not well grounded. The claim for service connection for an adjustment disorder is well grounded, and the veteran was granted service connection for dysmenorrhea.

The Board found no medical evidence linking the veteran's current back disability, lead paint exposure-related disabilities, or asbestos exposure-related disability to his period of service. The claims were denied as not well-grounded.

The Board denied a higher evaluation for asbestos-related pleural disease, finding that the veteran's condition did not meet criteria for a rating in excess of 30 percent from July 29, 1996 to October 6, 1996 and did not warrant a rating in excess of 60 percent from October 7, 1996.

The veteran is seeking service connection for asbestosis, which he claims was caused by inservice exposure to asbestos. The claim must be remanded due to the lack of service medical records and relevant post-service medical records.

The Board found that the veteran does not have an asbestos-related lung disorder and concluded that his current condition is due to tobacco-induced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The claim for service connection was denied.

The veteran's service connection for bilateral hearing loss was granted. However, no compensable rating (greater than zero percent) has been assigned.,Prior to September 23, 1999, the veteran's asbestosis did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under VA regulations. After that date, his FVC value of 79% was sufficient to warrant a 10% rating.,The veteran's service-connected asbestosis has been rated at 10% since September 23, 1999.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for asbestosis is well-grounded, and thus VA must assist in developing facts pertinent to the claim. The case is remanded for further development including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA chest radiographic examination.

The veteran's lung disorder, including asbestosis and COPD, was not shown to be related to service. Hyperopia/Presbyopia were found not recognized as disabilities under the law for VA compensation purposes.

The Board dismissed the appeals for service connection for a lung disability as a result of asbestos exposure, an increased rating for hypertension, and an increased (compensable) rating for residuals of left shoulder dislocation due to lack of substantive appeal.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection due to lack of new and material evidence, as well as finding that his claims were not well grounded.

The Board found that the veteran's claims for service connection for asbestosis and a disability of the knees were not well-grounded, thus denying them.

The Board found that the veteran does not have asbestosis due to his in-service exposure and denied his claim.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for plantar fasciitis and an increased rating for asbestosis. The decision found that the evidence did not support a well-grounded claim for service connection, and that the current disability picture of asbestosis warranted only a 30% evaluation.

The Board found that the veteran's back and neck disorder is not related to his service, while his lung disorder was attributed to smoking rather than asbestos exposure. The claim for both conditions was denied.