COPD Board decisions

The Board finds that the veteran's blunting of the right costophrenic angle warrants a 60 percent disability rating, effective from the date of his claim.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the appellant's in-service exposure to asbestos and its connection to his COPD.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and further development is needed, including obtaining medical records from Jackson Hospital and a private pulmonologist.

The Board is remanding the case for further development and consideration, including obtaining VA treatment records and conducting a VA examination to address the issues on appeal.

The Board found no competent evidence linking the veteran's current COPD to service, including any in-service exposure to radiation. The claim for service connection was denied.

The Board has reopened the appellant's claim of service connection for the cause of her husband's death, as new and material evidence has been received. However, the Board found that there was no causal relationship between any service-connected disability and his death.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete medical records and a need for further examination.

The Board has determined that the veteran's cause of death was not caused or substantially contributed to by any service-connected disability, and denied the claim for service connection for the cause of death.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence linking the veteran's current respiratory disabilities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchial asthma, to his military service. The claim will be further developed with a VA examination.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities have rendered him unable to walk without the aid of a wheelchair, and he is entitled to specially adapted housing assistance or a special home adaptation grant.

The Board has granted the appellant's claim of service connection for COPD, finding that it was incurred during military service.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and need for further development, including obtaining treatment records from VA and non-VA providers, as well as service personnel records. The appellant is asked to provide a history of her husband's employment, particularly related to asbestos exposure.

The veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to the need for additional medical evidence and development. The RO will obtain any relevant private treatment records, conduct VA examinations, and then readjudicate the claims.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for hypertension, tobacco and/or nicotine dependence, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema, and a rating in excess of 30% for schizophrenia. The evidence did not establish that these conditions were incurred or aggravated by service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is proximately due to his service-related nicotine dependence, and thus grants service connection for this condition.

The Board has found that additional development of evidence is required, including obtaining Social Security Administration records and service hospitalization records. The appeal will be remanded to the RO/AMC for further action.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development to determine if any service-connected disabilities caused or contributed substantially or materially to the veteran's death, including septic shock and bacteremia.

The Board found that the veteran does not have COPD or pulmonary fibrosis attributable to asbestos exposure during military service.

The appeal is being remanded to the RO for additional development, including providing VCAA notice and obtaining medical records. The veteran's service connection claims will be adjudicated after this process.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for the cause of his death due to COPD, bilateral pneumonia, and cardiovascular collapse. The appellant is also not eligible for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code.