The Board has reopened the claim of service connection for an asbestos related pleural disease. The case is remanded to determine if there was post-service exposure to asbestos and to obtain a VA examination to assess the etiology of the Veteran's asbestos related pleural disease, including whether it is secondary to his enlarged heart.
The deciding factor: The evidence received since the August 2001 rating decision shows that the Veteran has asbestosis and may have been exposed to asbestos during service. The Board finds this new and material evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim for service connection for an asbestos related pleural disease.
- Claimed conditions
- asbestos related pleural disease, enlarged heart
- How they argued it
- Reopened with new and material evidence
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 30, 2009
- Citation
- 0911745
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 0911745.
What this means for you
A remand is not a loss. The Board sent the case back for more development — often a new exam or missing records — before making a final decision. Many remands later end in a grant, and the decision spells out exactly what the Board wanted to see.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of medical opinion addressing whether the Veteran's enlarged heart is directly related to service or secondary to his hypertension.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's motion to revise a May 1993 decision denying service connection for a heart condition, claimed as enlarged heart, based on an allegation of clear and unmistakable error (CUE).
- Partly granted
The Board granted service connection for hypertension and hypothyroidism, both due to presumed exposure to herbicide agents under the PACT Act. Other claims were either dismissed or remanded for further evidence.
- Partly granted
The veteran's claims for higher ratings for knee conditions and hemorrhoids were denied. However, the veteran was granted a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). Claims for service connection for an enlarged heart were denied, while claims for benign prostatic hypertrophy and erectile dysfunction were remanded.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.