Citation Nr: 20006557 Decision Date: 01/29/20 Archive Date: 01/27/20 DOCKET NO. 19-24 393 DATE: January 29, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for pleural effusion, to include as secondary to exposure to asbestos, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1977 to May 1980. Entitlement to service connection for pleural effusion, to include as secondary to exposure to asbestos, is remanded. Treatment records show that the Veteran’s diagnoses include asbestos exposure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and pleural effusion. See, e.g., Private Treatment October 2018. The Veteran has reported that he was exposed to asbestos fibers when sweeping up dust in barracks in service while maintenance was performed on asbestos wrapped pipes. Proper development of a claim of service connection for a disease claimed to be due to exposure to asbestos includes ascertaining: The nature and extent of exposure to asbestos in service, if any; the nature and extent of exposure to asbestos prior to, and following, service, if any; determining whether or not the Veteran has an asbestos-related disease; and, determining whether any such disease is related to his exposure to asbestos in service. Such development has not been completed in the instant case. The Veteran has reported exposure to dust and asbestos in service and has been diagnosed with “asbestos exposure,” COPD, and pleural effusion. After other development ordered here, a medical opinion should be obtained. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Complete treatment records, both VA and private, should be obtained on remand. In a May 2018 the Veteran reported treatment from a private provider. The record includes private treatment records dated to October 2018 and a record of a computed tomography (CT) dated in April 2019. VA treatment records dated to March 2016 and from September 2018 to October 2018 are of record. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for all private providers. Make two requests for the authorized records from all identified private providers, unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 2. Obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records for the period from March 2016 to the present. 3. Thereafter, take all appropriate action necessary to develop the record or make formal findings of fact for the record regarding the nature and extent of the Veteran’s exposure to asbestos during service and following service (specifically addressing his allegations of exposure while sweeping up dust in barracks in service while maintenance was performed on asbestos wrapped pipes). 4. After completion of the above, schedule the Veteran for an examination with an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and likely etiology of his claimed pleural effusion disability, and specifically whether he has an asbestos-exposure-related disease, and if so whether or not it is related to his exposure to asbestos in service (versus any post-service exposure to asbestos). Copies of all pertinent records must be made available to the examiner for review. (to specifically include the AOJ’s formal findings regarding the Veteran’s exposure to asbestos in service and post-service and this remand) must be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. Prior to the examination, the AOJ must provide the examiner with the formal findings regarding the Veteran’s claimed asbestos exposure. Based on review of the record and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should respond to the following: (a) Identify (by diagnosis) each disability found/shown by the record during the pendency of the instant claim. (b) Is it at least as likely as not that any disability diagnosed is related to the Veteran’s service? In answering this, the examiner must specifically discuss the formal findings as to the Veteran’s in-service asbestos exposure as provided by the AOJ. All opinions must include rationale. M.E. LARKIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Robert J. Burriesci, Counsel 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.