Citation Nr: 18154502 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 11/30/18 DOCKET NO. 15-29 289 DATE: December 4, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disability (originally clamed as emphysema), to include as secondary to asbestos exposure is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 1969 to February 1973. He died in March 2018. The appellant is the Veteran’s surviving spouse. The Board notes that in June 2018, the Appellant filed a claim for substitution of party. In October 2018, she was substituted for the Veteran in the pending claim, enabling her to proceed in the place of the Veteran to the completion of the original claim. See U.S.C. § 5121A(a)(1). This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Providence, Rhode Island. By that rating action, the RO, in part, denied service connection for lung disease (originally clamed as emphysema and asbestos). The Veteran timely appealed the RO’s determination therein to the Board. The Board notes that the issue of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction (ED) was also developed for appellate review. By a January 2016 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for ED; an initial noncompensable disability rating, effective March 15, 2003--the date VA received the Veteran’s initial claim for compensation for this disability. Thus, this is a complete grant of the benefits sought on appeal, and that issue is no longer before the Board. Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, the only issue remaining for the Board’s appellate consideration is the one listed on the title page. During his lifetime, the Veteran sought service connection for lung disease (originally clamed as emphysema). He maintained that his lung disease, diagnosed as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and bronchitis, was the result of having been exposed to asbestos, gun fire and paint while serving as a Boatswain’s Mate aboard the USS WARRINGTON (DD 843) off the coast of the Republic of Vietnam from 1971 to 1972. (See VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, dated in January 2013, and VA Form 21-0958, Notice of Disagreement, accepted as the Veteran’s Substantive Appeal and received into the Veteran’s Veterans Benefit Management System (VBMS) in February 2014)). The Veteran’s DD-214 and military personnel records reflect that his military occupational specialty was a Boatswain’s mate, a position that would have placed him in charge of a vessel’s maintenance and equipment, and that he had served aboard the USS WARRINGTON (DD 843) from July 28, 1969 to September 23, 1972. Thus, in view of the foregoing, the Board finds the Veteran’s assertions during his lifetime that he was exposed, in part, to asbestos, aboard the USS WARRINGTON ((DD 843) consistent with the circumstances of his military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) pertinently reflect that he was seen for a cold in February and March 1971 and February 1972. His lungs were evaluated as clear. A February 1973 service separation examination report reflects that the Veteran’s lungs and chest, to include a chest x-ray, were evaluated as “normal.” The post-service VA and private evidence of record reflect that the Veteran was diagnosed, in part, as having COPD and bronchitis during his lifetime. These reports also reflect that the Veteran had quit smoking cigarettes in 2008 and that his post-service employment was in land clearing. There are private and VA opinions that are supportive of and against the claim. Evidence in support of the claim includes a July 2013 report, authored by Dr. I. B. Dr. I. B. diagnosed the Veteran, in part, with “Dyspnea (likely due to a combination off PAH, COPD and some ILD/pleural thickening which could be related torn I prior exposure to asbestos.” (See July 2013 report, authored by Dr. I. B.) The Board finds Dr. I. B.’s July 2013 report to be of reduced probative value in evaluating the claim because it is equivocal (i.e., “could be”); did not disclose the origin of the Veteran’s asbestos exposure (i.e., during or post-service exposure); and, lacked medical reasoning. Thus, for these reasons, the Board finds Dr. I. B.’s favorable opinion to be of reduced probative value in evaluating the claim. Evidence against the claim includes a June 2015 VA examiner’s opinion, which was provided after a claims file review and physical evaluation of the Veteran. The VA examiner noted that a May 2012 computed tomography (CT) scan of the Veteran’s chest revealed fibrotic changes and bullous disease that was evidence of COPD emphysema without evidence of any asbestosis. (See June 2015 VA opinion). The Board finds the June 2015 VA examiner’s opinion to be of reduced probative value in evaluating the claim because it did not address the question of whether the Veteran’s diagnosed COPD was the result of exposure to asbestos while serving as a Boatswain’s Mate, or other advanced theories of entitlement, notable exposure to gunfire and paint. Thus, in view of the above-cited deficiencies in the Dr. I. B.’s and VA examiner’s opinions in addressing the etiology of the Veteran’s lung disability and its relationship to his period of military service, notably his exposure to asbestos, the Board finds that another examination and opinion are required prior to further appellate review of the claim. Of note, a review of the file suggests that an opinion may have already been requested in conjunction with a claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death (as evidenced by a November 13, 2018 entry). If this medical opinion adequately addresses the Board’s questions, a second opinion need not be requested. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: If a medical opinion addressing the below question has not yet been obtained, obtain a medical opinion to address the etiology of the Veteran’s lung condition. The examiner is asked to answer the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s lung disability was caused by his military service, specifically by any exposure to asbestos. Why or why not? In answering the question, the examiner is asked to consider the following evidence: (i) the Veteran’s testimony before a Decision Review Officer regarding his exposure to asbestos while serving on the USS WARRINGTON (DD 843) from July 28, 1969 to September 23, 1972; (ii) The Veteran’s MOS as a Boatswain’s Mate, a position that would have placed him in charge of a vessel’s maintenance and equipment; (iii) His service aboard the USS WARRINGTON (DD 843) from July 28, 1969 to September 23, 1972; (iv) STRs reflecting that the Veteran had received treatment for a cold in February and March 1971 and February 1972, and February 1973 service separation examination report reflecting that his lungs were evaluated as “normal;” and (v) July 2013 report, prepared by Dr. I. B. and June 2015 VA examiner’s opinion that are supportive and against the claim, respectively. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Carole Kammel, Counsel