Lung cancer Board decisions

The Board found no evidence of asbestos exposure during service and concluded that the veteran's current respiratory conditions, including lung cancer, are not related to his period of active duty. The claim for PTSD was also denied.

The Board found that the veteran's lung cancer was not incurred in or aggravated by service and denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The Board denied service connection for the cause of the veteran's death due to lung cancer, finding that it was not caused by or related to his inservice treatment for Pulmonary Tuberculosis. The Board also noted that the veteran had a history of smoking and that tobacco use was the primary cause of his lung cancer.

The veteran's disability rating for lung cancer was reduced from 100% to noncompensable. The Board has restored the original 100% rating due to procedural errors in the reduction process.

The Board denied service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, finding that no competent evidence linked any fatal disabilities to active service or a service-connected disability.

The veteran's lung cancer, asbestosis (interstitial fibrosis), and pleural plaques are causally related to asbestos exposure during his military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for esophageal cancer, liver cancer, and lung cancer, finding no evidence linking these conditions to his military service or exposure to ionizing radiation. The claim was also not granted based on Agent Orange exposure.

The Board found that the cause of the veteran's death (lung cancer) was not related to service, and denied the claim for service connection for the cause of death.

The Board found no clear and unmistakable error in the April 1978, June 1980, or October 1972 rating decisions that denied service connection for back injury, pneumonia, and lung cancer.

The Board found that the veteran's lung cancer was not diagnosed prior to June 2002 due to lack of medical necessity for a chest X-ray during the relevant period, and thus denied his claim under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of service connection for lung cancer, finding no evidence linking his condition to active duty or exposure to ionizing radiation.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for DIC benefits, finding that the veteran's death was not due to VA hospital care or medical treatment. The case was remanded multiple times and referred to other issues.

The veteran's cause of death is presumed to have been incurred in service due to exposure to Agent Orange. The Board finds that the primary site for his metastatic adenocarcinoma was likely lung cancer, which is presumptively related to his Vietnam-era herbicide exposure.

The Board has granted service connection for lung cancer, but denied service connection for prostate cancer as there is no medical evidence linking the veteran's prostate cancer to his period of active service.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for service connection for the cause of her husband's death and eligibility for Chapter 35 dependents' educational assistance, finding that there was no evidence to support these claims.

The Board found that the veteran's lung cancer, which was first diagnosed many years after service, is not related to any incident of service. The retained shrapnel from a gunshot wound did not contribute substantially or materially to cause the veteran's death.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development due to ambiguous findings in a VA examination report and incomplete medical records.

The veteran's claim for service connection for lung cancer, which was secondary to asbestos exposure, has been dismissed due to the death of the veteran.

The Board found that the veteran's death was not caused by his service-connected PTSD or due to VA medical treatment, and thus denied DIC benefits based on service connection for the cause of death and denied a claim under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to VCAA notification issues and to clarify whether the appellant wants a personal hearing.