Citation Nr: 19155502 Decision Date: 07/18/19 Archive Date: 07/17/19 DOCKET NO. 19-17 576 DATE: July 18, 2019 ORDER Service connection for a chronic respiratory disorder, including asbestosis, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had asbestosis or any chronic respiratory disorder at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a chronic respiratory disorder, including asbestosis, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1958 to August 1961. Service connection for a chronic respiratory disorder, including asbestosis The Veteran contends that service connection should be established for a chronic respiratory disorder, claimed as asbestosis. He contends he was exposed to asbestos in connection with his duties onboard a ship while serving in the U.S. Navy. In support of his claim, he submitted the report from a private chest X-ray study conducted in 2000 which was interpreted as being consistent with asbestosis. It is noted that the Veteran submitted his claim for compensation benefits in 2017. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a chronic respiratory disorder, including asbestosis, and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). It is initially noted that a review of the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) shows no complaint or manifestation of a chronic respiratory disorder. On examination for separation from service, a clinical evaluation of the lungs and chest was normal, and a chest X-ray study was negative. In January 2018, the Veteran underwent a VA examination wherein an examiner evaluated him and determined that, while he experienced subjective symptoms of a respiratory disorder, he did not have a diagnosis of any chronic respiratory disorder, including asbestosis. In making this determination, the examiner acknowledged that the Veteran was given a diagnosis of asbestosis in April 2000 based on chest X-ray findings. The examiner noted, however, that the chest X-ray conducted as part of the January 2018 VA examination did not show any evidence of asbestosis and that if the Veteran still had asbestosis, it would have shown up on the current chest X-ray, but it did not. The examiner also scheduled the Veteran for a pulmonary function test, which was performed later that same month. In a February 2018 addendum report, the examiner noted that the Veteran demonstrated normal spirometry. The January 2018 VA examiner’s findings are supported by the Veteran’s VA treatment records which also show that, despite treatment from May 2001 to November 2011, they are silent for any diagnosis of any chronic respiratory disability, with examinations consistently showing lungs clear to auscultation and percussion. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s private physician reported the findings of a chest X-ray study dated in April 2000 as being “consistent with asbestosis provided the [Veteran’s] exposure history and period of latency are appropriate,” however, this report was addressed by the January 2018 VA examiner who (for reasons already explained above) found the Veteran did not currently have a diagnosis of a chronic respiratory disorder, including asbestosis. Moreover, the Board notes that in the private physician’s April 2000 report of the study, he also noted that the film quality of the study was only a “grade 3” due to underexposure and that the findings of fullness and increased density in the right cardiophrenic angle could be due to technique. Repeated films were recommended, but there is no indication that these were performed. Significantly, the Veteran’s VA treatment records show that a May 2007 VA chest X-ray study showed no changes when compared to an early 2005 study with the lungs clear but for some basal fibrosis/scarring. By January 2018 (as noted above), a chest X-ray study showed the lungs to be clear. While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of a chronic respiratory disorder, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education, the knowledge of the interaction between multiple organ systems in the body, and the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Joseph P. Gervasio The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.