Citation Nr: 20076629 Decision Date: 12/02/20 Archive Date: 12/02/20 DOCKET NO. 18-08 773 DATE: December 2, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for chronic kidney disease, to include as due to asbestos exposure, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s chronic kidney disease was not incurred in service, was not due to exposure to asbestos during service, and was not otherwise related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for chronic kidney disease are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from June 1961 to March 1964. In August 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing. The transcript is of record. In April 2020, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim to obtain an additional medical opinion. The requested opinion has been obtained. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Accordingly, the Veteran’s claim is now ready for Board review. The Veteran submitted his claim for chronic kidney disease due to asbestos in June 2017. At his August 2018 hearing the Veteran asserted that he developed kidney disease due to his exposure to asbestos while on a Navy ship. He reported that he was found to have kidney disease around 2015 and he testified that a doctor related his chronic kidney disease to asbestos exposure. Service connection may be granted if there is a disability resulting from personal injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.30 (a). To establish service connection, the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In a February 2019 decision the Board stated that the Veteran was likely to have been exposed to asbestos when he was onboard ships in the Navy. The Board now concedes that the Veteran was exposed to asbestos in service. The Board notes that the Veteran’s kidney disease, diagnosed as hypertensive nephropathy, is not one of the disabilities listed in the VA Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, Chapter 2, Section C, para. 2 (updated July 7, 2020), that are considered to be asbestos-related diseases. In this case, the evidence of record shows that the Veteran was diagnosed with kidney disease in 2010, approximately 46 years after service. The evidence does not show that he developed kidney disease in service. The Veteran contends that the kidney disease was due to exposure to asbestos while in service. The critical issue before the Board is whether there is a causal relationship between the Veteran’s kidney disease and his exposure to asbestos during service. In September 2019, the Veteran and his records were examined by a VA physician. The physician opined that the Veteran’s kidney disease, hypertensive nephropathy, was not related to asbestos exposure during service. She noted that asbestosis is a disease that tends to be isolated to the lungs. She also opined that there was no evidence that the Veteran’s kidney disease was caused by anything other than uncontrolled hypertension. The Veteran’s records were reviewed by a VA clinician in July 2020. She opined that the Veteran’s kidney disease was unrelated to asbestos exposure. She reported that she performed a literature review and found no documentation reflective of peer reviewed medical evidence supporting a connection between kidney disease and asbestos. Although the Veteran asserted that a doctor told him that his chronic kidney disease was related to asbestos exposure, none of the medical records contain such a medical opinion. At the Board hearing the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) advised the Veteran that his claim would be strengthened if he could provide a statement from a doctor that related his exposure to asbestos to his kidney disease. The VLJ stated that the record would be held open for 90 days to provide the Veteran the opportunity to submit such an opinion is he wished. No additional medical evidence was received from the Veteran following the August 2018 Board hearing. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s contentions. However, the determination as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s kidney disease is a medical determination that is beyond his competence to evaluate based upon his knowledge and expertise. The record does not indicate that the Veteran had any medical training or expertise. It follows that his statements as to the nature and etiology of his kidney disease are not competent evidence. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (2007); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 438 (2011). Accordingly, the lay opinions of the Veteran have no probative value. Considering the September 2019 and July 2020 VA medical opinions, the preponderance of the probative evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s kidney disease is etiologically related to service, to include exposure to asbestos. There is no indication in the record that the Veteran’s kidney disease first manifested in service. The medical evidence of record shows that the Veteran’s kidney disease manifested decades after service. Furthermore, the September 2019 and July 2020 VA medical examiners indicated that it was likely that the Veteran’s kidney disease was related to his nonservice-connected hypertension. The weight of the evidence is convincingly against a finding that the Veteran’s kidney disease was a result of active service, to include exposure to asbestos during service. For these reasons, the claim is denied. G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. E. Jones, 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.