Citation Nr: 21040537 Decision Date: 07/05/21 Archive Date: 07/05/21 DOCKET NO. 13-14 267 DATE: July 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disorder, to include as due to inservice exposure to ionizing radiation and/or asbestos is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to inservice exposure to ionizing radiation and/or asbestos is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), to include as due to inservice exposure to ionizing radiation and/or asbestos is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an aneurysm, to include as due to inservice exposure to ionizing radiation and/or asbestos is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an esophageal disorder, to include as due to inservice exposure to ionizing radiation and/or asbestos is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a liver disorder, to include as due to inservice exposure to ionizing radiation and/or asbestos is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for pancreatitis, to include as due to inservice exposure to ionizing radiation and/or asbestos is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from February 1951 to January 1954. The Veteran passed away in May 2017. The appellant, the Veteran's surviving spouse, was granted substitution for the Veteran's pending claims by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in December 2017. Prior to his death, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in December 2015. A transcript of that hearing is included in the claims file. Entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disorder; entitlement to service connection for hypertension; entitlement to service connection for COPD; entitlement to service connection for an aneurysm; entitlement to service connection for an esophageal disorder; entitlement to service connection for a liver disorder; and entitlement to service connection for pancreatitis are remanded. As noted by the Board in its January 2016 Remand, the Veteran alleged during his December 2015 Board hearing that his claimed disorders were incurred as a result of in-service exposure to asbestos. The Board requested that the AOJ obtain the Veteran's service personnel records and conduct any indicated development to determine whether the Veteran's claimed disorders were related to the alleged in-service asbestos exposure. The Veteran's service personnel records establish that he served as a heavy truck driver during his active duty service. According to VA guidance documents, the duties of a heavy truck driver, reasonably interpreted as a construction driver, result in "probable" exposure to asbestos. Consequently, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran experienced a "probable" degree of asbestos exposure as a result of his in-service duties. While the AOJ obtained VA opinions in August 2020 to determine whether any of the Veteran's claimed disorders were related to an in-service event, injury, or disease other than radiation exposure, the Board finds the August 2020 VA opinions to be inadequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (holding that once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination for a service-connection claim, even if not statutorily obligated to do so, it must provide an adequate one). Specifically, the August 2020 opinions merely state that the Veteran's claimed disorders were not related to his active duty service because there was no evidence of a diagnosis of such disorders during the Veteran's active duty service. A medical opinion based solely on the absence of documentation in the service treatment records or that fails to take into account lay statements is inadequate. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (VA examiner's opinion inadequate that relied on the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence); see also Acevedo v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 286, 294 (2010); Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39 (2007). Because the VA opinions were clearly based exclusively on a lack of evidence of the claimed disorders in the service treatment records and failed to consider the Veteran's lay statements and the evidence in the service personnel records of probable in-service asbestos exposure, new VA opinions are warranted. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain new VA medical opinions that address the etiology of the Veteran's cardiovascular disorder, hypertension, COPD, aneurysm, esophageal disorder, liver disorder, and pancreatitis prior to the Veteran's death. Following a complete review of the electronic claims file, including a copy of this remand, the VA examiner(s) is requested to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran's cardiovascular disorder, hypertension, COPD, aneurysm, esophageal disorder, liver disorder, and/or pancreatitis were the result of his active duty service, to include in-service exposure to asbestos. In forming a conclusion, the VA examiner is requested to rely on the following: (1) the Veteran had a "probable" level of asbestos exposure during service while performing his duties as a heavy truck driver; and (2) pursuant to VA guidance documents, the latency period for the development of asbestos-related diseases ranges from 10 to 45 or more years between first exposure and development of disease. The opinion(s) must be supported by a complete explanatory rationale based on the examiner's medical expertise, the examiner's clinical experience, current medical principles, and citations to the record, as appropriate. ROBERT C. SCHARNBERGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Katz, 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.