Asbestosis decisions — 2007

The veteran's service-connected asbestosis has resulted in unemployability due to severe respiratory impairment, and the Board grants a TDIU based on this condition.

The veteran is seeking a higher rating for asbestosis and COPD, but the case has been remanded due to incomplete pulmonary function testing.

The veteran's respiratory disability, including asbestosis and pneumonia, is being remanded for further examination to determine if it is related to service exposure to asbestos.

The VA denied a higher initial rating for the veteran's asbestosis, currently rated at 10 percent.

The veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to the need to obtain VA medical records and provide proper VCAA notice.

The veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for asbestosis is being remanded due to the need for further development, including a VA respiratory examination.

The veteran requested to withdraw his claim for service connection for asbestosis, secondary to asbestos exposure. The Board dismissed the appeal.

The veteran's claimed conditions, including bilateral foot pain, right and left carpal tunnel syndrome, stomach ulcers, gastrointestinal reflux disease, erectile dysfunction, chronic sinusitis, lipomatous lesion of the left shoulder, benign prostatic hypertrophy, tinnitus, depressive disorder, and hypertension, have been evaluated. The veteran does not meet the criteria for a combined 100 percent schedular rating under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. Therefore, his claim for permanent and total disability rating for VA non-service-connected pension purposes has been denied.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO in Houston, Texas for further action including scheduling a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at San Antonio, Texas.

The Board found that the veteran's asbestosis was not incurred in or aggravated during his active duty service and denied his claim.

The Board has remanded the case due to recent developments in the veteran's respiratory health and the need for updated private and VA treatment records, as well as a VA examination. The veteran is also advised of the amended regulation regarding pulmonary function tests (PFTs) used in evaluating respiratory conditions.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection is without legal merit and therefore denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran was exposed to asbestos during active service and that there is competent medical evidence linking this exposure to his current asbestosis. Therefore, the veteran's claim for service connection for asbestosis is granted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's calcified pleural plaques due to asbestos exposure warrant a 30 percent evaluation, effective from December 2, 1998. The total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability is denied.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have asbestosis or any asbestos-related lung disease, and therefore cannot establish service connection for a lung disorder.

The Board has determined that the veteran's asbestosis is a result of exposure to asbestos during his active service, and thus grants service connection for this condition.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims for service connection due to missing service records and incomplete medical history. The case will be returned to the RO after further development.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for additional development, including VA examinations to determine the etiology of his hearing loss, respiratory disorders, and hepatitis C.

The veteran's claim to reopen a service connection for a perforated right tympanic membrane was denied due to lack of new and material evidence.,Service connection for allergies due to asbestos exposure was not established as there is no evidence of such exposure in service or any current disability linked to it.

The RO denied service connection for asbestos exposure in January 2003, and the veteran did not file a timely Notice of Disagreement (NOD).