Citation Nr: 21001125 Decision Date: 01/07/21 Archive Date: 01/07/21 DOCKET NO. 17-65 340 DATE: January 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for emphysema on the basis of substitution is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on the basis of substitution is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for asbestosis on the basis of substitution is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1960 to March 1964. In December 2018, the Veteran and his wife appeared at a Board hearing and testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Unfortunately, the Veteran died in February 2019. In November 2019 memorandum, VA recognized the substitution of the Veteran’s surviving spouse as the appellant in this case. 1. Entitlement to service connection for emphysema on the basis of substitution is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for COPD on the basis of substitution is remanded. 3. Entitlement to service connection for asbestosis on the basis of substitution is remanded. In this case, remand is required to secure an adequate VA examination and opinion that considers all the evidence of record. The Veteran submitted a letter from his private clinician in January 2019. The Veteran’s private clinician reported that he had served aboard an aircraft carrier from 1960 to 1964 and that it was reasonable to conclude that he breathed in significant asbestos fibers while in the military. The clinician also noted that the Veteran had a long history of smoking, but exposure to asbestos had compromised his pulmonary function and increased his susceptibility to chronic lung conditions. There are two VA examination reports of record conducted in November 2015 and June 2017. The VA examiner that completed both of these reports concluded that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of asbestosis. Regarding COPD and emphysema, the examiner noted 40 years history of cigarette smoking, as well as significant post-service occupational asbestos exposure, to determine that it was less likely than not that the claimed conditions were related to active service exposure to asbestos. However, these examinations did not consider the January 2019 private nexus letter. Additionally, while the January 2019 private treatment letter notes that Veteran’s lung conditions may be related to his in-service asbestos exposure, the opinion is insufficient to grant service connection as the opinion failed to address the Veteran’s post-service asbestos exposure from his career as a firefighter, pipe fitter, and work at a munitions factory. In light of this new evidence the Board finds that a new VA examination is required that considers Veteran’s private physician’s letter that shows his current respiratory conditions may be related to his in service asbestos exposure. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Forward the claims file to an examiner with an appropriate expertise who has not previously provided an opinion for this Veteran (if possible), to determine the etiology of COPD, emphysema, and asbestosis. The entire claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. An explanation for all opinions expressed must be provided. a) The examiner is requested to clarify all currently diagnosed COPD, emphysema, and asbestosis. If asbestosis is not diagnosed, the examiner must explain why. b) For each diagnosed disorder (COPD, emphysema, and asbestosis), is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the disorder had onset in, or is otherwise related to, the Veteran’s military service, to include in-service exposure to asbestos? The examiner may presume the Veteran was exposed to asbestos in service, for purposes of providing this opinion. The examiner must specifically address the November 2015 and June 2017 VA examination reports of record, as well as the January 2019 private treatment letter. Additionally, the examiner must comment and consider the Veteran’s reports of post-service asbestos exposure. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Dworkin, 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.