Citation Nr: 20001034 Decision Date: 01/07/20 Archive Date: 01/07/20 DOCKET NO. 09-00 966 DATE: January 7, 2020 REMANDED The Veteran served on active duty from June 1959 to April 1963. REASONS FOR REMAND This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2008 rating decision by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As noted in the Board’s May 2017 decision, the Veteran died in December 2015 and the Appellant has been substituted as the claimant for the purposes this claim, which was pending at the date of the Veteran’s death. See 38 U.S.C. § 5121A. The extensive procedural history associated with the claim is detailed in the Board’s decisions of September 2013 and May 2017. In March 2013, the Veteran testified before the undersigned as to other claims. In a January 2014 letter, the Veteran’s representative withdrew his request for a hearing as to the issue addressed herein. Now, following the additional development directed by the Board in May 2017, the claim is returned for continued appellate review. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), is remanded. VA has a duty to ensure any medical examination or opinion it provides is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (overruled on other grounds, Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013)). A medical opinion is adequate where it is based upon consideration of the full medical history and describes a disability in sufficient detail so that the Board’s evaluation will be fully informed. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 123 (2007). The Board’s May 2017 decision directed additional development to evaluate the Veteran’s claim of exposure to asbestos during active duty. Following this development, the RO was to obtain a medical nexus opinion to determine whether the Veteran’s COPD was at least as likely as no related to his military service, including the alleged in-service exposure to asbestos. In March 2019, the Veteran’s possible exposure to asbestos was evaluated by the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC). The JSRRC determined the Veteran had “probable exposure to asbestos” during his service aboard the USS Princeton for 26 months, from October 1960 to December 1962. This exposure was associated with the Veteran’s duties as a helicopter mechanic. A March 2019 medical opinion was obtained to address the claim for service connection for COPD. The examiner reviewed the claims folder and opined that COPD was less likely than not related to the Veteran’s military service. Contrary to the JSRRC assessment, the examiner stated the in-service asbestos exposure would have lasted four months. The examiner also stated, “[i]t is likely that asbestos exposure for this [V]eteran, if present at all during service, was at a level that would be clinically negligible.” As asbestos exposure over a 26-month period is conceded, the examiner’s characterization of this exposure as lasting four months is inaccurate. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993) (indicating an opinion based on an incorrect factual premise has no probative value). This opinion is inadequate to evaluate the claim. See Stefl, supra. The Board further notes, the March 2019 examiner explained that asbestos disease “is associated with restrictive lung changes, but not obstructive changes in COPD.” VA pulmonary function tests conducted in March 2000, and associated with the claims file, include a note stating “mild restrictive pattern by spirometry without bronchodilator response.” It is unclear whether these restrictive changes are related to COPD or another respiratory disability. Accordingly, the claim of service connection for COPD is expanded to include any respiratory condition. See Clemons v. Shinseki 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009) (stating that, when determining the scope of a claim, the Board must consider “the claimant’s description of the claim; the symptoms the claimant describes; and the information the claimant submits or that the Secretary obtains in support of that claim”.) The claim, as listed above, reflects this expansion. (Continued on the next page)   The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate clinician, who has not previously reviewed this claim, regarding whether the Veteran’s COPD, or any other respiratory disability indicated in the claims file, is at least as likely as not related to the Veteran’s military service, including conceded probable asbestos exposure over 26 months aboard the USS Princeton. The examiner is instructed that the Veteran’s exposure to asbestos is not in question as it has been conceded. The examiner should also comment on pulmonary function tests from March 2000 which noted a “mild restrictive pattern. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jeanne Celtnieks 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.