Asbestosis decisions — 2004

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including PTSD, hearing loss, and asbestos exposure. The decision also addressed whether new and material evidence had been received to reopen previous claims related to tobacco use/nicotine dependence and cold injury.

The Board found that the veteran does not have asbestosis and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found no evidence to support the veteran's claims for service connection of prostate cancer, skin conditions, and granuloma of the right lung due to asbestos exposure. The bilateral knee disability was also denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for asbestosis and low back disorder, finding that there was no evidence of a nexus between these conditions and his military service.

The Board denied service connection for the veteran's claimed conditions, including bilateral hearing loss, left leg disorder, gastroesophageal reflux disease, asbestosis, and hypertension. The decision also noted that new evidence did not reopen claims for pes planus and arthritis.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for an asbestos-related disease, finding no current evidence of such a condition and concluding that the veteran did not have a qualifying exposure to asbestos during his military service.

The veteran's claims for service connection and increased rating are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining medical records and determining exposure to asbestos.

The VA determined that the appellant does not have a current respiratory disorder, including asbestosis and asbestos-related pleural disease. The VA examiner concluded that the appellant's service exposure to asbestos did not result in a current disability.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a VA examination to determine the nature and likely etiology of the veteran's claimed lung disorder. The case will be reconsidered after this additional development.

The Board has determined that the veteran's restrictive lung disease and asbestosis are related to his service, specifically exposure to asbestos during active duty. The claim is granted.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient development of evidence regarding asbestos exposure and service connection for asbestosis. The appellant is requested to provide employment history, identify any relevant medical records, and undergo a VA examination.

The veteran seeks a higher initial rating for asbestosis, which was previously granted but with a non-compensable (0 percent) rating. The Board has determined that a new VA examination is necessary to determine the current severity of his service-connected asbestosis.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the veteran's previously denied claim for service connection for asbestosis.

The VA has determined that the veteran's COPD or pulmonary asbestosis is not related to service or his service-connected residuals of pleurisy and pneumonia.

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation of his asbestosis disability is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including a new VA examination and notification requirements under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000.

The Board found no evidence of asbestos exposure during service and concluded that the veteran's current pulmonary condition is not related to such exposure. The claim for service connection was denied.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims for additional development due to incomplete records and need for new VA examinations.

The VA determined that the veteran's service-connected status post right upper lobectomy with history of lung cancer secondary to asbestos exposure warranted a 10 percent disability rating, based on current pulmonary function test results showing mild to moderate restrictive changes.

The February 1998 rating decision denied an evaluation in excess of 60 percent for asbestosis, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on pulmonary hypertension or other criteria.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed pulmonary disorder, including asbestosis. The veteran was exposed to asbestos during his military service but also worked for companies where he may have been exposed post-service.