Asbestosis decisions — 2003

The Board has determined that the veteran does not currently have asbestosis or an asbestos-related disease, despite his conceded exposure in service. Therefore, the claim for service connection is denied.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for COPD, arteriosclerotic peripheral vascular disease, and asbestosis. The issue of a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD during the period from July 23, 1992, to April 5, 2000, remains pending.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and conducting a VA examination to determine if the veteran's asbestosis is related to his service.

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for additional evidence and clarification. The case is now being remanded back to the RO for a lung disorder examination.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for asbestosis, finding that it was not established through direct evidence or any other theory of service connection.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for asbestos exposure, right ankle and elbow injuries, psoriasis, cognitive impairment, and an earlier effective date for a higher rating for heart disease. The decision also found no CUE in the June 1995 rating decision.

The Board has determined that further development is needed to determine if the veteran's lung disorder, including lung cancer and COPD, was incurred or aggravated by in-service exposure to asbestos and unidentified chemical agents during service in the Philippines.

The veteran's combined disability rating is 70 percent, with a bilateral factor of 3.6 percent. The Board has determined that the veteran is unemployable due to his service-connected disabilities and granted a TDIU based on these findings.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for asbestosis, claimed to be due to asbestos exposure in service. The veteran's civilian employment with the Forestry Service is not considered a significant factor in his current condition.

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for additional evidence and clarification. The case is now being remanded back to the RO for compliance with VCAA requirements, including obtaining personnel records and occupational exposure information.

The Board denied an increased rating for the veteran's asbestosis with bronchitis, finding that his symptoms did not warrant a higher evaluation based on the current FVC and DLCO results.

The Board has determined that the appellant is entitled to service connection for asbestosis, finding an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence with respect to a medical nexus.

The Board has remanded the case due to procedural issues and additional development is required.

The Board found that the veteran was exposed to asbestos during service and has asbestosis, which is related to his military exposure. As a result, the Board granted service connection for asbestosis.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an initial compensable evaluation for asbestosis, finding that his condition did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under VA disability evaluation guidelines.

The VA denied an increased disability evaluation for lung plaque consistent with asbestos exposure, as the veteran's lung function did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 6833.

The Board has reopened the claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder and denied it. The claim for service connection for asbestosis or a lung condition due to Agent Orange exposure is considered, but the evidence does not support reopening of this claim.

The VA determined that the veteran does not have a disability as a result of exposure to asbestos during service.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for an initial evaluation in excess of 60 percent for asbestosis and service connection for residuals of a right knee injury.

The Board has received notification of the appellant's withdrawal of his appeal, and therefore dismisses the case.