Citation Nr: 21022198 Decision Date: 04/15/21 Archive Date: 04/15/21 DOCKET NO. 16-56 001 DATE: April 15, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from August 1965 to May 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2016 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee. The Veteran and his wife presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in January 2020. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disorder is remanded. The Board remanded this matter in March 2020 for additional development. Unfortunately, the Board finds that there has not been substantial compliance with its previous remand directives and, as such, another remand is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). When VA undertakes to provide a Veteran with an examination, that examination must be adequate for VA purposes. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). An addendum VA opinion was obtained in May 2020. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran's lung condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by his service, noting that there is no evidence of a significant lung condition while in service or at separation. The examiner noted the article cited in the January 2020 private medical opinion and stated that it was a small review article and that it “does not represent a widely accepted, peer-reviewed study, but only suggests a possible association.” The VA examiner noted a January10, 2017 note from a radiologist stated there is no evidence of disease caused by asbestos exposure. The VA examiner then stated that pleural plaques are classically associated with asbestos disease and are not noted here. It was then noted that no active disease was present. The VA examiner then stated that the granulomatous changes are not those associated with asbestos and are due to some prior exposure, including the possibility of TB. Here, the examiner relied heavily on a lack of treatment records documenting symptoms in-service as well as current symptoms, but failed to address the lay statement of the Veteran that he began having respiratory problems while on active duty, or those of the Veteran’s wife who stated he has had breathing problems since around 2010. The Board further notes that in a February 2019 statement, the Veteran asserted exposure to fumes from fuel and cleaning supplies while aboard the USS Shenandoah. He then stated that he “started having issues while in service with [his] respiratory system. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his claimed respiratory disorder, to include old granulomatous disease. After appropriate testing, if a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran’s condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a “disability” for the purpose of providing the requested opinion(s) below. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Is the respiratory condition at least as likely as not related to service, including conceded exposure to asbestos or claimed exposure to fumes from fuel and cleaning supplies? The examiner is asked to address the Veteran’s contention that he “started having issues while in service with [his] respiratory system”. The examiner is asked to address the testimony of the Veteran’s wife that she noticed 8 years ago that the Veteran was short of breath and was wheezing, even when not exerting himself. The examiner is asked to address the January 8, 2020 private medical opinion which found that the Veteran’s old granulomatous disease was as likely as not directly related to his exposure to asbestos while in the Navy. All opinions provided must be thoroughly explained, and a complete and detailed rationale for any conclusions reached should be provided (a bare conclusory statement will be deemed inadequate). It is not sufficient to base an opinion on a mere lack of documentation of complaints in the service or post-service treatment records. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Brian P. Keeley 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.