Citation Nr: 18152485 Decision Date: 11/23/18 Archive Date: 11/23/18 DOCKET NO. 16-56 406 DATE: November 23, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for asthma, claimed as respiratory virus, is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for sarcoidosis is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has asthma due to a disease or injury in service, to include a specific in-service event, injury, or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for asthma are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from September 2002 to February 2003, from April 2003 to September 2003, and from June 2006 to May 2007. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2016 rating decision of the VA Regional Office (RO) in Newman, Georgia. 1. Entitlement to service connection for asthma, claimed as respiratory virus The Veteran contends that he has incurred asthma as a result of his active military service. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Thus, the question for the Board is whether the Veteran has asthma that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) are negative for any complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of asthma while in service. During February 2016, the Veteran underwent VA two examinations, a Gulf War General Medical Examination, and another examination for respiratory conditions. The examinations provided a current diagnosis for asthma, but the examiner (who conducted both examinations) concluded in a separate opinion that the Veteran’s asthma was less likely than not incurred in or caused by an in-service event, injury, or disease. The Veteran had been treated in February 2008 for a cough, not constant, with pain in his mid-chest, and then was not seen again for a chronic cough or shortness of breath until December 2012. The examiner opined that there was insufficient and inadequate evidence to support the Veteran’s contention that the environmental hazards he was exposed to in the Gulf War led to his current asthma. In his January 2016 statement in support of his claim, the Veteran stated that during service and in the years since leaving service, he has experienced difficulty breathing, chest discomfort, and shortness of breath. He finds himself unable to physically perform many normal daily activities. The Veteran states that he was exposed to burning pits and incinerators while deployed in Djibouti and Fallujah, Iraq, and that such exposure was “enough to make anyone ill.” The Veteran is competent to report his lay symptoms and experiences, such as shortness of breath or chest pain. However, the Veteran is not competent to provide a diagnosis of asthma in this case, to opine on whether any symptoms he has experienced were manifestations of asthma, or to ascertain whether his asthma is caused by his in-service exposure to environmental hazards. Those issues are medically complex, as they require medical training and expertise. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, in the absence of competent evidence of a nexus between the Veteran’s asthma and an in-service injury, event, or disease, the Board finds that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s asthma began during service or is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. Accordingly, the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for asthma must be denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for sarcoidosis is remanded. The Veteran contends that he suffers from sarcoidosis as a result of his active service. VA treatment records confirm that the Veteran’s sarcoidosis had resolved in August 2015, approximately one month before his claim for service connection was received by VA. See August 2015 VA treatment records; September 2015 VA 21-526EZ. In that sense, this case is distinguishable from McClain v. Nicholson because the Veteran’s condition resolved prior to filing the claim for service connection. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). Additionally, as noted during the Veteran’s February 2016 Gulf War VA examination, the examination was negative for scars, complications, conditions, or other pertinent physical findings related to either the Veteran’s claimed sarcoidosis or asthma. However, during the Veteran’s February 2016 Gulf War VA examination, the examiner marked that the Veteran had chronic hilar adenopathy attributable to sarcoidosis, but did not indicate whether the Veteran currently suffered from the condition. If so, this might entitle the Veteran to, at a minimum, service connection for residuals of sarcoidosis per McClain. As such, the Board finds that a remand to obtain an addendum medical opinion is warranted. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all outstanding VA medical records and ask the Veteran to provide authorizations for any private medical records he would like considered in connection with his appeal. 2. After completing the requested development, obtain an addendum opinion from a VA medical professional with experience in pulmonary diseases to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s sarcoidosis and associated conditions. Specifically, the examiner should answer the following questions: a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s sarcoidosis had its onset during or was caused by the Veteran’s active service, including as due to hazardous environment exposure? b.) Does the Veteran currently suffer from chronic hilar adenopathy? If so, is the condition at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) due to the Veteran’s active service, including as stemming from sarcoidosis. The entire claims file must be made available to the medical professional, and the addendum opinion should include discussion of the Veteran’s documented medical history and assertions. Consideration should be given to the Veteran’s January 2016 lay statement. Any conclusions reached must be supported by a complete and detailed rationale. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Evan Thomas Hicks