Citation Nr: 18142700 Decision Date: 10/17/18 Archive Date: 10/16/18 DOCKET NO. 15-38 897 DATE: October 17, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for asbestosis is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a diagnosis of asbestosis. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for asbestosis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Navy from July 1969 to July 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 Rating Decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida.   Service Connection for Asbestosis I. Legal Criteria Establishing direct service connection generally requires (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship or nexus between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The Board must assess the credibility and weight of all evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive. When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the appellant prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Equal weight is not accorded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; not every item of evidence has the same probative value. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that an appellant need only demonstrate that there is an “approximate balance of positive and negative evidence” in order to prevail. See Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53. The Court has also stated, “It is clear that to deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim.” Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). Lay evidence, if competent and credible, may establish a nexus in certain circumstances. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (2009). When considering whether lay evidence may be competent, the Board must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the Veteran’s particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011). The Board has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence in the Veteran’s claims file. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, all of the evidence submitted by the Veteran or on his behalf. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claims. The Veteran must not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000). II. Analysis The Veteran contends that he has asbestosis resulting from exposure to asbestos while in service. Review of the Veteran’s service treatment records failed to show complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of or associated with asbestosis. In the July 1973 Report of Medical Examination, clinical evaluation of the lungs was normal. In the November 2014 examination report, the VA examiner found that Veteran’s lungs contained small pleural plaques consistent with prior asbestos exposure, but found no evidence of asbestosis. The examiner wrote that asbestosis is defined as diffuse pulmonary fibrosis caused by the inhalation of excess amounts of asbestos fibers. She added that, pathologically, both pulmonary fibrosis of a particular pattern and evidence of excess asbestos in the lungs must be present. She wrote that the pulmonary fibrosis of asbestosis was interstitial and had been a basal subpleural distribution, which was similar to that seen in idiopathetic pulmonary fibrosis, which is the principal differential diagnosis. The examiner noted that imaging of the Veteran’s lungs showed bilateral pleural plaques. She added that pleural plaques are benign and the most common manifestation of past exposure to asbestos. She added that pleural plaques indicate only that there has been exposure to asbestos and are “nearly always asymptomatic.” The VA examiner wrote that the fact that plaques are present on the parietal pleura means that they have “little effect on lung expansion.” She added that the lung function changes “if any” were very small. The Board finds this VA medical opinion to be adequate for VA purposes and of high probative value. The examiner physically examined the Veteran, reviewed lung x-rays, and explained her conclusion as to why there was no evidence of asbestosis, which included a discussion as to what clinical findings are needed to diagnose asbestosis. The Veteran’s lay statements in his substantive appeal further support the lack of evidence of asbestosis, since he disputed why he should have to wait for disability compensation after his asbestos plaques become cancerous. Unfortunately, in order to receive compensation for a disability, a veteran must have evidence of a current disability. The Veteran stated in his substantive appeal and his Informal Hearing Presentation that he has difficulty breathing, which, he argues, should have been addressed by VA. However, these lay statements are not competent for the purpose of determining whether the Veteran has a diagnosis of asbestosis. Asbestosis needs to be determined by a medical professional. No such disability has been established in this case, and, in fact, a VA examiner has specifically concluded that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of asbestosis. For all these reasons, the Board finds that the evidence preponderates against the Veteran’s claim for service connection for asbestosis since he does not have a diagnosis of a current disability. As such, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable, and the claim is denied. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. H. Vasil, Associate Counsel