Asbestosis decisions — 2010

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to missing service records and conflicting medical opinions regarding the Veteran's claims.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current pulmonary disability is not related to his in-service asbestos exposure, and therefore service connection for asbestosis or any other respiratory/pulmonary disability is denied.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine the Veteran's exposure to asbestos and Agent Orange, as well as his current psychiatric and sleep disorders. The claims are being remanded for further action.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for asbestos-related lung disease, lung cancer, and colon cancer. The decision found that his current conditions were not incurred or aggravated by service.

The Board has ordered a remand to gather more information about the Veteran's asbestos exposure during and after service, as well as any pre-service or post-service occupational exposures. The VA will conduct another examination to determine if there is a relationship between the Veteran's pulmonary condition and his service.

The Veteran's claims for service connection and increased ratings were denied. The Board found that the Veteran's asbestosis is not related to active service, his gastroesophageal reflux disease does not meet criteria for a higher rating, and his varicose veins of both legs do not meet criteria for a higher rating since July 10, 2001. His hemorrhoids were also found not to warrant a compensable rating.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for additional development, including obtaining updated VA treatment records and scheduling a VA Respiratory examination to assess the extent of his service-connected asbestos-related lung disease.

The Veteran's asbestosis disability is rated at 60 percent, meeting the minimum schedular criteria for TDIU. The Board finds that the Veteran is unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation due to his service-connected asbestosis.

The Veteran is seeking an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected asbestosis. The Board finds that there is a further duty to assist the Veteran with his claim and schedules a new VA examination.

The Board found that the Veteran does not currently suffer from asbestosis, and there is no evidence linking his current conditions to service or a service-connected disability. As such, service connection for asbestosis, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and skin rash was denied.

The Board denied service connection for asbestosis and lumbar spine disability, finding that the Veteran's pre-existing lumbar spine disability was not aggravated by service. The claim for asbestosis remains pending.

The Veteran's appeal was denied for his claims of service connection for various conditions, including bilateral eye disability, left ankle and foot disabilities, asbestosis, right hip osteoarthritis with labral tears, left knee disability, and left hip tear. The RO found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for an eye disability.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for lead poisoning, lung disability as the residual of asbestos exposure, and diabetes mellitus were denied. The evidence does not support these claims.

The Board finds that the Veteran's diagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is not due to exposure to asbestos in service, nor is such disability otherwise related to his military service. The Veteran has been granted a new and material issue of reopening his claim for asbestosis but does not have evidence linking it to service.

The Board found that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis of asbestosis or COPD, and there was no evidence linking these conditions to his military service. As such, the claims for service connection were denied.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including a VA examination and clarification of the Veteran's hearing preferences.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete development of the Veteran's work history and employment records, as well as his exposure history. The claim will be reconsidered in light of all pertinent evidence.

The Veteran's claims for service connection are denied as the evidence does not support a link between his claimed conditions and his military service.

The Board has granted service connection for asbestosis and is granting the benefits sought on appeal. The Veteran's claims of entitlement to special home adaptation grant and specially adapted housing are pending.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination to evaluate his lung conditions.