COPD decisions — 2024

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for COPD and a heart condition as secondary to COPD, finding that there is no evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Board has found that the Veteran requires personal care services for a minimum of six continuous months based on her need for supervision, protection, or instruction due to multiple diagnosed conditions and functional limitations. The appeal is being remanded for further development to determine eligibility for PCAFC benefits.

Service connection for emphysema and COPD is granted. An effective date of March 16, 2020, for TDIU is granted.

The Veteran's appeals for service connection for depression, a compensable rating for hypertension, TDIU, and COPD with asthma have been dismissed due to the appellant's withdrawal of his appeal.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding asbestos exposure and a need for further examination of the Veteran's respiratory disabilities, including COPD.

The Veteran's asthma rating was reduced from 60% to 30%, but the Board found this reduction improper and restored the original 60% rating.

The Board has granted earlier effective dates for the awards of service connection for COPD and sleep apnea, special monthly compensation based on housebound criteria being met, and basic eligibility to Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) based on permanent and total disability status. These awards are effective from November 16, 2020.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for clarification on whether the Veteran's COPD would not have occurred without his in-service exposure to asbestos and other toxic substances.

The Board has remanded the cases for further development and opinion regarding service connection for COPD, bladder cancer, and a heart condition.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claim for service connection for a respiratory disability, including sinus and COPD, due to its complexity and need for additional medical opinions. The Appellant contends that the Veteran's PTSD and OSA caused or aggravated his respiratory condition.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate compliance with previous remand instructions regarding the severity of the Veteran's service-connected residuals of lung adenocarcinoma status post right lower lobe lobectomy, as distinguished from other nonservice-connected lung disabilities.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate examination and opinion regarding service connection for a respiratory condition, including COPD. The Veteran was exposed to asbestos during service and presumed to have been exposed to herbicides in Vietnam.

The Board has granted service connection for COPD and Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis, finding that the Veteran's current conditions are at least as likely as not due to in-service asbestos exposure.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a respiratory disability, other than his already service-connected episodic bronchitis. The evidence did not support a finding of a separate respiratory disability.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for COPD was denied because new and relevant evidence had not been received to support the claim, despite his exposure in Vietnam. The PACT Act does not apply as COPD is not one of the diseases covered by this law.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for COPD.

The Board has granted the readjudication of claims for service connection for COPD and heart disorders. The claim for service connection for a heart disorder is remanded due to a duty to assist error.

The Board has granted service connection for COPD, finding that the Veteran's exposure to asbestos during service is at least as likely as not related to his current condition.

The Board denied service connection for COPD, finding that the evidence did not establish a causal relationship between the Veteran's current condition and his military service, including exposure to Agent Orange.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate VA opinions and a need for further development, including obtaining a new VA opinion on the relationship between the Veteran's claimed conditions and his in-service asbestos exposure.