Citation Nr: 0812630 Decision Date: 04/16/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 06-18 774 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and her son ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. L. Reynolds, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from March 1952 to September 1955. He died in May 1997. The appellant is the veteran's surviving spouse. This case comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2005 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York. The appellant presented testimony at a Travel Board hearing chaired by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in August 2007. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the appellant's claims folder. REMAND The appellant has contended that the veteran's exposure to asbestos during service significantly contributed to his death. The veteran's personnel records show that he served onboard the USS Midway from June 1952 to August 1952 as well as the USS Rook from September 1954 to August 1955. The appellant testified that the veteran's military occupational specialty involved working in the laundry room of the ships. The certificate of death indicates that the immediate cause of death in May 1997 was cardiopulmonary arrest, which was due to or as a consequence of chronic interstitial lung disease. Another significant condition listed as contributing to death was diabetes mellitus. An August 2005 statement from Dr. Klass, notes that the veteran had been under his care for many years until his expiration in 1997. He stated that the veteran had pleural calcifications and pulmonary fibrosis, which he presumed were due to asbestosis. He concluded that the veteran ultimately died of lung disease. Though Dr. Klass did not specifically conclude that asbestos exposure caused or contributed to the veteran's death, he certainly implied that it did. In light of this implication, the fact that the veteran served in the Navy onboard various Navy vessels, and that the veteran's death certificate lists chronic interstitial lung disease as an immediate cause of the veteran's death, the Board concludes that a VA medical opinion concerning the cause of the veteran's death should be obtained. Additionally, no attempt has been made to obtain records of the veteran's medical treatment from Dr. Klass, who specifically indicated that he had treated the veteran for many years. This should be done before the VA medical opinion is obtained. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO or the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC for the following actions: 1. The RO or the AMC should undertake appropriate development to obtain a copy of all records of the veteran's medical treatment by Dr. Klass and any other outstanding pertinent evidence identified by the appellant. 2. If the RO or the AMC is unable to obtain any pertinent evidence identified by the appellant, it should so inform the appellant and her representative and request them to provide the outstanding evidence. 3. Then, the RO or the AMC should arrange for the claims folder to be reviewed by a qualified physician, who should be requested to provide an opinion as to whether there is a 50 percent or greater probability that the veteran's exposure to asbestos during service played a material causal role in the veteran's death, to include whether it caused or chronically worsened one or more of the certified causes of death. The rationale for the opinion should also be provided. If no opinion can be rendered, without resorting to pure speculation, the physician should explain why this is not possible. 4. Thereafter, the RO or the AMC should review the claims file and ensure that the requested development has been conducted and completed in full. If any development is incomplete, appropriate corrective action is to be implemented. 5. The RO or the AMC should also undertake any other indicated development. 6. Then, the RO or the AMC should readjudicate the issue on appeal based on a de novo review of the record. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the appellant's satisfaction, the appellant and her representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and provided an appropriate opportunity to respond before the case is returned to the Board for further appellate action. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. See Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2007). _________________________________________________ Shane A. Durkin Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2007).