Citation Nr: 21061509 Decision Date: 10/04/21 Archive Date: 10/04/21 DOCKET NO. 18-14 122 DATE: October 4, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for right leg peripheral artery disease is granted. Entitlement to service connection for left leg peripheral artery disease is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The competent evidence of record reasonably supports a finding that the Veteran's right leg peripheral artery disease is related to his active service. 2. The competent evidence of record reasonably supports a finding that the Veteran's left leg peripheral artery disease is related to his active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for right leg peripheral artery disease are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for left leg peripheral artery disease are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from March 1970 to August 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran timely filed a Notice of Disagreement in September 2017. In September 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the proceeding has been associated with the claims file. Service Connection Entitlement to service connection for right and left leg peripheral artery disease The Veteran contends that his right and left leg peripheral artery disease is due to asbestos exposure. The Veteran was exposed to asbestos during his military service, which has been conceded, and in view of that exposure he was service connected for coronary artery disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that is related to his military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). July 2016 private treatment records show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of lower extremity peripheral artery disease. Thus, the question becomes whether the current disability is related to service. On this question there are probative opinions in favor of and against the claim. The evidence against the claim includes an April 2017 VA examination. However, the VA examiner addressed only secondary service connection; (whether peripheral artery disease was due to the Veteran's coronary artery disease). Here, the Veteran has also alleged direct service connection. The evidence in favor of the claim includes a November 2017 opinion from the Veteran's private treatment provider. The Veteran's private treatment provider noted that the Veteran was diagnosed to have CAD, arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and PAD, which the provider indicated was connected to the Veteran's history of CAD. Another one of the Veteran's cardiologist provided further information in an April 2020 letter. He explained that CAD and PAD are both forms of atherosclerosis, noting that CAD occurs in the heart, while PAD occurs in any arterial vessels outside the heart or brain. He added CAD and PAD are strongly correlated, sharing the same risk factors, and that asbestos is an inflammatory agent, which process is involved in the development of atherosclerosis. It was his view that because of the relationship between asbestos exposure and the development of atherosclerosis generally, it includes a relationship between asbestos exposure and the development of PAD. (Continued on the next page) Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence of record does not preponderate against the claim. Rather, there is at least a balance of evidence on the question whether the Veteran's lower extremity PAD was due to service. Accordingly, after resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for right and left leg peripheral artery disease is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. MICHAEL KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board V. Geer, 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.