Citation Nr: 21040021 Decision Date: 07/02/21 Archive Date: 07/02/21 DOCKET NO. 17-02 395 DATE: July 2, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a lung disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's lung disorder was not shown in service or for many years thereafter and is not otherwise etiologically related to active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a lung disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1969 to November 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2019, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim for further development, which has since been substantially completed. See Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999) (remand not required under Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998), where Board's remand instructions were substantially complied with), aff'd, Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377 (2002). Entitlement to service connection for a lung disorder The Veteran asserts that his currently diagnosed lung disorder is related to active duty service. Specifically, he asserts that, in his military occupational specialty of fireman, he worked in the boiler room on a ship and was exposed to asbestos that ultimately caused his current condition. The Board concedes the Veteran's asbestos exposure during service, as his military occupation raises a high probably of such exposure. However, as will be discussed, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran's current lung disorder began during service, was aggravated by, and/or is otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include his in-service asbestos exposure. For that reason, his claim must be denied. Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Generally, the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 (1995). Turning first to the question of a current disability, the Board remanded this claim in May 2019 in part to clarify the nature of the Veteran's current lung disorder in light of the medical evidence then of record. Specifically, in January 2015, a private medical provider noted she could not entirely rule out some underlying interstitial disease and possibly mild asbestosis in addition to the Veteran's known diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). She recommended a follow-up x-ray when the Veteran's acute exacerbation of pulmonary symptoms resolved. A report associated with medical imaging taken in February 2015 documented COPD and associated pulmonary fibrosis. In July 2015, a VA examiner found the Veteran had COPD and pulmonary fibrosis, but not asbestosis. In January 2020, the same examiner again concluded that the Veteran did not have asbestosis but had COPD. Finally, in May 2020, the same VA examiner clarified that the Veteran was being treated for COPD, only, not asbestosis or pulmonary fibrosis, and noted there was no confirmed diagnosis of either pulmonary fibrosis or asbestosis. The examiner cited April 2016 imaging studies that indicated focal pleural thickening in the left lower lobe was possibly due to old rib fractures and that indicated abnormal densities in the bases of both lungs had resolved. The examiner also explained that pulmonary function testing conducted during the 2015 VA examination showed obstructive findings, not the restrictive findings that would be associated with asbestosis. The Board finds the examiner's 2020 opinion that the Veteran does not have asbestosis and instead has a current diagnosis of COPD probative, as it was based on examination of the Veteran and review of the other medical evidence of record, and it was accompanied by a medical rationale. In particular, it finds that opinion on current diagnosis more probative than the private examiner's January 2015 statement that she could not "entirely rule out that [the Veteran had] some underlying interstitial disease and possibly mild asbestosis," pending further testing. Turning to the question of whether the Veteran's lung disorder, however diagnosed, is related to service, the Board first notes that the Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any treatment related to a lung disorder and his November 1970 separation examination reflected normal chest and lungs. More to the point, the Veteran does not assert that his condition began in service or shortly thereafter. Instead, he asserts it is causally related to his in-service asbestosis exposure. Regarding causation, the competent evidence fails to establish a relationship between active duty and the Veteran's current symptoms. In that regard, the Board places significant probative value on the May 2020 and January 2020 VA examiner's opinion that found that the Veteran's lung disorder was less likely than not related to active duty service, including asbestos exposure, and was instead due to decades of tobacco smoking. This opinion was rendered by a medical professional familiar with the Veteran's records and pointed to another more likely cause for the Veteran's current lung disorder. Moreover, the Veteran has not submitted any medical opinions to the contrary. In arriving at this conclusion, the Board acknowledges and has also considered the statements made by the Veteran relating his disorder to in-service asbestos exposure. However, the Veteran is not competent to diagnose or establish the etiology of his lung disorder, as he is a lay person without the appropriate medical training and expertise to offer opinions on those questions. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377, n.4. Therefore, these statements lack probative value and do not bring the evidence on those questions into relative equipoise. In light of the above discussion, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current lung disorder that is related to service, and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the Veteran's claim for service connection for a lung disorder must be denied. L. STEPANICK Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Billinger, 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.