Citation Nr: 21071590 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 16-42 241 DATE: November 30, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an asbestos related lung condition, to include bilateral calcified pleural plaques, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1961 to April 1965. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2020, the Board denied the Veteran's claim of service connection for an asbestos related lung condition, to include bilateral calcified pleural plaques. The Board found that the Veteran served aboard the USS Johnston as a shipfitter (SFM) in the U.S. Navy. The Board acknowledged that during the time the Veteran was in active service, asbestos was known to exist on Naval vessels, and therefore conceded that the Veteran had some degree of asbestos exposure during active service. However, it relied on a January 2020 VA opinion in which the examiner indicated that post service asbestos exposure was part of her reasoning for rendering a negative nexus opinion. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a June 2021 joint motion for remand (JMR), the parties agreed that the Board erred in denying the claim. Specifically, the Board did not make a factual finding based on the evidence of record as to whether the Veteran was exposed to asbestos after discharge and instead relied on the January 2020 VA examiner's opinion. The Board finds that the Veteran's history of post-service exposure to asbestos is unclear. At the 2016 VA examination, the Veteran reported that following service he worked in a warehouse loading and unloading fright material. In a March 2013 note, the Veteran stated the following "jobs before and after service:" grocery clerk for 1 1/2 years, construction for 1 year, machine operator for 4 years, ventilation test engineer for 4 years and tractor trailer driver for 33 1/2 years. It is unclear whether his duties were primarily in a warehouse or as a tractor trailer driver, which may or may not have included exposure to asbestos. On remand, the Veteran should be asked to provide a history of his duties and exposure to asbestos following service. Then, an opinion should be obtained from an appropriate specialist to determine whether it is as likely as not that the Veteran's lung condition, to include bilateral calcified pleural plaques, is related to his in-service asbestos exposure. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the Veteran and request that he provide a thorough history of his duties and exposure to asbestos on any of the jobs held following service. Provide the Veteran with a reasonable time in which to respond and inform him that if he does not respond in the stated time, VA will proceed with his claim. 2. After the above development has been completed, obtain an opinion from an appropriate specialist (not the examiner who provided the January 2020 examination) to determine the etiology of the Veteran's lung condition, to include bilateral calcified pleural plaques. The claims file and this remand must be reviewed by the examiner. Consideration of such should be reflected in the opinion or in an addendum. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that the Veteran's lung condition, to include bilateral calcified pleural plaques, was caused by or is etiologically related to the Veteran's conceded in-service exposure to asbestos. (Continued on the next page) In so opining, the examiner is requested to rely on the following: (1) the article from asbestos.com entitled "Asbestos Exposure on Navy Ships", (2) any information received regarding the Veteran's post-service employment and exposure to asbestos, and (3) the Veteran's statements that while working in the shipyard his duties included tearing off asbestos from steam lines by hammer and by hand and that "asbestos would float around like snowflakes." The examiner must provide a complete rationale for each opinion. If the examiner is unable to provide an opinion without resort to speculation, he or she should explain why this is so and what, if any, additional evidence would be necessary before an opinion could be rendered. Rebecca N. Poulson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Romero-Sanchez, Emma J. 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.