Citation Nr: 0814234 Decision Date: 04/30/08 Archive Date: 05/08/08 DOCKET NO. 06-14 118 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for asbestosis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. R. Weaver INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from February 1950 to September 1954. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2006 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The veteran asserts that he has asbestosis due to asbestos exposure in service. Specifically, he claims that he slept under an asbestosis covered pipe while aboard the USS Kearsarge (CVA-33) and was showered by white particles every time he got in or out of his bunk. He reported that used to be a heavy smoker. After leaving the service, he avers that he worked for 25 years in restaurants and 25 years as an auto glass installer. A July 2007 private medical record indicated the veteran currently had suspected underlying asbestosis with restrictive lung disease as well as reduced diffusion secondary to interstitial lung disease. Claims of service connection for asbestosis or other asbestos-related diseases must be analyzed under the guidelines set forth in Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1 (M21-1), Part VI, para. 7.21 (January 31, 1997). See Ennis v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 523 (1993); McGinty v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 428 (1993). The Board notes these provisions were rescinded and are now found at M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section C, which became effective on December 13, 2005. The guidelines provide, in part, that VA must develop any evidence of asbestos exposure before, during and after service and determine whether there is a relationship between asbestos exposure and the claimed disease, keeping in mind the latency period and exposure information. Ashford v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 120 (1997). A medical opinion is also required to determine whether the veteran's condition is related to exposure to asbestos in service or post-service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4) (2007). In the present case, the required development has not been performed. Hence, a remand is necessary to ensure full compliance. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should take appropriate action to develop evidence of the veteran's asbestos exposure before, during, and after his active service, to specifically include seeking information as to whether pipes aboard the USS Kearsarge (CVA-33) were insulated with materials containing asbestos between 1950 and 1954. 2. The RO should then arrange for the veteran to be examined by a pulmonary specialist to determine the current nature and likely etiology of his suspect underlying asbestosis with restrictive lung disease as well as reduced diffusion secondary to interstitial lung disease. His claims folder must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination and any indicated studies should be conducted. Based on the examination and review of the record, the examiner should provide a medical opinion as to whether the veteran, at least as likely as not, has any lung disability due to asbestos exposure. If it is found that the veteran does have asbestos-related disability, the examiner should further opine whether such disability is, at least as likely as not, related to asbestos exposure in service. The examiner should specifically comment upon the role of post-service asbestos exposure. The examiner must explain the rationale for all opinions given. 3. The RO should then readjudicate the matter of entitlement to service connection for asbestos. If the claim remains denied, the RO should issue an appropriate supplemental SOC, and give the veteran and his representative the opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. 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). _________________________________________________ L. HOWELL 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).