The Board has found the VA clinician's opinion inadequate and requires a new examination to determine if the Veteran's atelectasis is related to his service, specifically his exposure to ammonium hydroxide and diazonium salt during service. The examiner must consider the Veteran's reported symptoms following his in-service exposure.
The deciding factor: The Board found the VA clinician's opinion inadequate due to its failure to consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding his symptoms following in-service exposure.
- Claimed conditions
- atelectasis
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- Burn pits / airborne hazards
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 20, 2026
- Citation
- A26025322
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 A26025322.
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.
- Granted
The Veteran's respiratory disorder, including bronchitis, COPD, and atelectasis, is rated at 100% effective January 12, 2024. Service connection for heart disability, obstructive sleep apnea, and pneumonia has been granted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for a respiratory disability, diagnosed as adenocarcinoma of the lung, atelectasis, and bronchiectasis, to obtain an updated TERA memorandum and new VA opinion.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient compliance with previous remand directives, and a new VA examination is needed to determine if the Veteran's lung disorders are related to his in-service asbestos exposure.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that additional medical opinions are needed to address the Veteran's lung disability, including its relationship to asbestos exposure and service-connected myocardial infarction. The case is being remanded for these purposes.
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.