Citation Nr: 20003658 Decision Date: 01/15/20 Archive Date: 01/15/20 DOCKET NO. 17-05 302 DATE: January 15, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for mesothelioma of the right pleural cavity, claimed as due to exposure to asbestos, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1970 to March 1972. The Veteran died in March 2017 and the appellant is his surviving spouse. In August 2017, she was accepted as a substitute claimant for the purpose of processing this appeal to its completion. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2019, the appellant and her son testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. Entitlement to service connection for mesothelioma of the right pleural cavity, claimed as due to exposure to asbestos. The appellant contends the Veteran’s diagnosed mesothelioma of the right pleural cavity is due to asbestos exposure during his military service when he was stationed in outdated buildings during his trainings and through his 11 month period of service in Turkey from April 1971 to March 1972 when he was stationed on a daily basis in a building with whitewashed walls, utilized burn-bags, and wore insulated gloves and aprons. In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted two studies that linked malignant pleural mesotheliomas to environmental exposures to asbestos in rural parts of central Turkey in January 2017. Notably, such studies indicated that villages in Turkey would use asbestos soil (or white soil) to white-wash their walls. He also included a detailed list of his pre-service and post-service employment, to include working in a molybdenum mine for 2 years and as a general laborer/technician for Amax corporation for 5 years, which owned the molybdenum mine. Further, at the November 2019 Board hearing, the appellant reported that the Veteran had also worked as a mechanic for a year and a half. Thus, the Board finds that a medical opinion is necessary in order to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s mesothelioma. Specifically, the evidence shows that he was likely exposed to some amount of asbestos while serving in Turkey, through the use of asbestos soil in white-washing walls and wearing gloves and aprons while using burn bags; however, his reported pre- and post-service employment, especially as a mechanic, also suggests that he may have been exposed to asbestos therein. Thus, a medical opinion is necessary to resolve the question as to whether the Veteran’s mesothelioma is related to his in-service asbestos exposure as opposed to any pre- or post-service asbestos exposure. Additionally, while the appellant submitted additional evidence at the time of her November 2019 Board hearing, such has not been associated with record. Thus, she should be provided with another opportunity to provide such evidence. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide the appellant with an opportunity to resubmit the evidence she provided at the time of the November 2019 Board hearing. 2. Forward the record to an appropriate medical professional so as to obtain an opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran’s mesothelioma of the right pleural cavity. The record and a copy of this Remand must be made available to the examiner. Following a review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s mesothelioma of the right pleural cavity is related to his in-service asbestos exposure as a result of the use of asbestos soil in white-washing walls in the buildings in which he was stationed and wearing gloves and aprons while using burn bags while in Turkey from April 1971 to March 1972. The examiner should consider the Veteran’s reported pre- and post-employment history, which includes working as a mechanic for a year and a half, to include any possible asbestos exposure therein, and the articles he submitted in support of his claim in January 2017. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jonathan M. Estes 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.