Citation Nr: 21004950 Decision Date: 01/28/21 Archive Date: 01/28/21 DOCKET NO. 16-58 073 DATE: January 28, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a respiratory disorder is denied. REMANDED Service connection for a left lower extremity (LLE) disorder. Service connection for a right lower extremity (RLE) disorder. Service connection for a left upper extremity (LUE) disorder. Service connection for a right upper extremity (RUE) disorder. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from August 1973 to July 1985. 2. A respiratory disorder was not shown in service; a current respiratory disorder, diagnosed as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), is not causally or etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW A respiratory disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (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 in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The medical evidence reflects the existence of a current disability. Specifically, a March 2020 VA examiner noted a current diagnosis of COPD. Further, the clinical treatment records show a history of pleural abnormalities and pleural thickening. As such, the first element of service connection has been met. As to in-service incurrence, the service treatment records (STRs) do not reflect complaints of or treatment for a respiratory disorder. The May 1985 separation examination reflected a normal clinical evaluation of the lungs and chest. Accordingly, the STRs do not support the in-service incurrence of a respiratory disorder. The Veteran’s main contention is that he was exposed to asbestos during service. To that end, a March 1980 service examination report noted asbestos in his pertinent clinical history. Further, during a January 1981 periodic health evaluation, he stated that he had been exposed to asbestos while working. As such, the STRs and personnel records support exposure to asbestos during service and the second element of service connection has been met. Turning to nexus, in March 2020, a VA examiner found that COPD was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. He noted that while previous chest x-rays showed pleural abnormalities, the medical records did not reflect a diagnosis of asbestosis. Further, six normal pulmonary function tests were performed between 2007 and 2016. Given the history of multiple benign pulmonary tests, along with the fact that the Veteran had smoked cigarettes since the age of 12, the examiner concluded that the current pulmonary condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. There are no contradictory medical opinions of record. As such, the medical evidence does not support the grant of service connection for a respiratory disorder. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements that his disorder was caused by service. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. However, he is not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of his current disorder due to the medical complexity of the matters involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records, clinical evidence, and examination obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to his statements. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). REASONS FOR REMAND The Board denied entitlement to service connection for bilateral upper and lower extremity disorders in a December 2019 decision. The Veteran appealed to the Veterans Claims Court. In August 2020, the Court Clerk vacated portions of the Board’s December 2019 decision pursuant to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR), remanding the appeal to the Board for further appellate action. Specifically, the JMPR found that there was evidence of current disorders and an in-service incurrence. As such, VA examinations are warranted in order to obtain medical nexus opinions. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Identify and obtain any outstanding, pertinent VA or private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the etiology of his bilateral upper and lower extremity complaints. All pertinent evidence of record must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner, and any indicated tests should be performed. Based on statements from the Veteran, a review of the record, and a physical examination, the examiner is asked to address the following: • What are the current diagnoses associated with the right and left upper extremities, and the right and left lower extremities? • As to the diagnosis found in each extremity, it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the disorder was the result of an in-service event or injury? The examiner is asked to address each extremity separately. L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Kokolas, Associate 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.