Citation Nr: 21065452 Decision Date: 10/26/21 Archive Date: 10/26/21 DOCKET NO. 16-23 961 DATE: October 26, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for an acquired respiratory disability, to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), emphysema and asthma, to include as due in-service exposure to oil, smoke, and/or asbestos, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the United States Navy from October 1976 to August 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. In December 2018, the Board denied service connection for an acquired respiratory disability, to include COPD, emphysema and asthma, to include as due in-service exposure to oil, smoke, and/or asbestos. The Veteran appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In February 2020, the Court granted a joint motion for partial remand (JMPR), vacating the Board's decision as it related to the issue currently on appeal, and remanded the matter for compliance with the JMPR. Per the JMPR, an additional remand was found to be necessary for an addendum opinion to clarify the findings of the VA examinations for the Veteran's respiratory disability. The parties to the JMPR maintained that in its December 2018 denial of the claim on appeal, the Board had failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases to address the conflicting findings of the April, June, and July 2016 VA examinations of record and address the potential relevance of the Veteran's treatment for asthma noted in his VA medical treatment records. See JMPR at page (pg.) 2)). The JMPR noted that in denying the claim, the Board had primarily relied upon the findings of an April 2016 VA examiner's opinion, which the Board had accorded "significant probative value." However, the Board did not address the findings of the other 2016 VA examinations of record, which appear to conflict with the April 2016 VA examiner's findings. For example, the April 2016 VA examiner found that the Veteran had been diagnosed with respiratory conditions such as emphysema and COPD and found that his COPD was predominantly responsible for the need of inhaled medications. Conversely, subsequent June 2016 VA COPD and respiratory examiners had contradictory findings regarding respiratory conditions had cited to April 2016 pulmonary function tests (PFTs) that showed no indication of COPD or emphysema. In addition, and as noted in the JMPR, the Veteran was also diagnosed with asthma. As the actual diagnosis of the Veteran's respiratory disability is unclear, the Board finds that a remand for an addendum opinion to clarify the evidence is necessary prior to further appellate review of the claim. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain an addendum VA medical opinion regarding the nature and likely etiology of the Veteran's respiratory disability. If a physical examination is necessary to answer the Board's questions, one should be scheduled. The examiner is asked to: (a) Clarify the Veteran's respiratory diagnosis. (b) For each respiratory diagnosis, provide an opinion as to whether it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) had its onset during service or is otherwise related to it, to include as due to the Veteran's presumed exposure to asbestos, and/or oil and smoke. Specifically, the examiner is requested to address the conflicting findings with respect to the current respiratory diagnoses found in the April, June and July 2016 VA examination reports, containing disparate findings as to whether the Veteran has diagnosis of COPD and emphysema, and VA treatment records, containing a diagnosis of asthma. The examiner should review the Joint motion for remand (2/20/20 "CAVC Decision") for an explanation of the evidence that should be considered in providing the requested opinion. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Carole Kammel, 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.