Citation Nr: 21069996 Decision Date: 11/22/21 Archive Date: 11/22/21 DOCKET NO. 18-44 028 DATE: November 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disability, to include as due to asbestos exposure, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from December 1975 to January 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a June 2020 decision, the Board denied the Veteran's service connection for a respiratory disability. The Veteran timely appealed the June 2020 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a June 2021 Order, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) filed by the parties, the Court vacated and remanded the Board decision. The Veteran maintains that his respiratory disability is due to asbestos and/or hazardous fumes and chemicals exposure during service with his military occupational specialty (MOS) as deck seaman aboard a fleet oiler and a destroyer tender (repair ship), which included duties of deck and boat seamanship, cargo handling, general damage control, and painting. See May 2016 VA Form 21-4138, September 2016 Notice of Disagreement (NOD), and September 2018 VA Form 9. The Board concedes that the Veteran was exposed to asbestos, fumes and chemicals during active duty, as such exposure is consistent with his MOS. See, e.g., September 2016 Notice of Disagreement; September 2018 Correspondence. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2016. However, as noted in the JMR, this examination is inadequate as the examiner failed to provide sufficient rationale for the negative opinion and was not privy to the Veteran's statements regarding his exposure to hazardous fumes and chemicals. Thus, on remand an addendum opinion is necessary to adequately address all theories of entitlement. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an addendum opinion from an examiner other than the June 2016 examiner to determine the etiology of the Veteran's respiratory disability. The claims file, including a copy of this remand, must be provided to the examiner in conjunction with the requested opinion. No additional examination is needed, unless the examiner determines otherwise. Following a complete review of the claims file, the examiner should address the following: (a) Diagnose any respiratory disability present since March 2016, even if resolved, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), sarcoidosis of the lung, small airway disease, restrictive lung disease, and chronic cough. If no such diagnoses are warranted, please reconcile your finding with diagnoses of the same in August 2015 and December 2015 VA treatment records and the June 2016 VA examination report. (b) For each respiratory disability diagnosed in part (a), please opine on whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that such disability had its onset during service, to include as a result of conceded exposure to asbestos, hazardous fumes and chemicals due to duties of his MOS. In addressing this question, the examiner must discuss: (i) the Veteran's conceded exposure to asbestos, hazardous fumes and chemicals due to duties of his MOS; (ii) the Veteran's lay statements, including in the May 2016 Statement in Support of Claim, regarding his exposure to asbestos due to duties of his MOS and reports of experiencing symptoms of asbestos exposure shortly after service with a dry cough, chest pain, shortness of breath and weight loss; (iii) the Veteran's January 1976 service treatment records (STRs), which note a "bad cough" that was non-productive; (iv) March 1980 and April 1984 VA treatment records noting hospital treatment with diagnosis of pulmonary infiltrate in both of his lungs. (c) Please state whether a nexus between the Veteran's respiratory disabilities diagnosed in part (a) and military service is "medically plausible," assuming (i)-(iv) above as true, even though items (i) and (ii) are undocumented. In doing so, please comment on the medical literature submitted by the Veteran in September 2018 noting Navy jobs which had exposure to asbestos including boatswains and some of the activities in building Navy ships that led to exposure due to the use of ACM products that had asbestos including deck and floor tiles and painting and wallboard which the Veteran asserts he did as a deck hand. A comprehensive rationale must be furnished for all opinions expressed. If the examiner is unable to provide a medical opinion, then he or she should provide a statement as to whether there is any additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided, or whether the inability to provide the opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge. S. BUSH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Asante, Ruby 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.