Citation Nr: 22003751 Decision Date: 01/25/22 Archive Date: 01/25/22 DOCKET NO. 16-45 278 DATE: January 25, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a lung disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record is at least in relative equipoise that the Veteran's lung condition is related to his active-duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a lung disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the United States Army from August 1969 to August 1971. In October 2019, the Veteran was provided a hearing with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a transcript of the proceeding is of record. The claim was brought before the Board in January 2020 and July 2021 and was remanded for further development. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In order to establish service connection, the record must show competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d, 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). When considering such a claim for service connection, the Board must consider on a case-by-case basis, the competence and sufficiency of lay evidence offered to support a finding of service connection. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 Fed. Cir. 2007)). The mere conclusory or generalized lay statements that a service event or illness caused a current disability are insufficient. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2010). The law provides that diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents used in support of military operations in the Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) during the Vietnam era will be considered to have been incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). A veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicides if he or she served in Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). The presumption of service connection requires exposure to an agent and manifestation of the disease to a degree of 10 percent or more within the time period specified for each disease. Entitlement to Service Connection: Lung Disability The Veteran contends that he currently suffers from a lung condition that is related to his active-duty service. As an initial matter, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran has been diagnosed with interstitial pulmonary (lung) disease, calcified lung nodules, and right upper lobectomy. Further, the Veteran had qualifying service in the Republic of Vietnam, and therefore, exposure to Agent Orange is presumed. Thus, the issue turns upon whether there is evidence of a nexus between the said in-service event or injury and the present diagnosed disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In February 2020, the Veteran submitted an opinion from his private physician dated January 2020. The physician explained that the Veteran had an unusual tumor in his lung that was benign. The physician opined that the Veteran's lung tumor, as well as his skin condition, were likely a result of toxic exposure, which is even more likely seeing as both diagnoses occurred. The physician rationalized that the Veteran's history leads the physician to believe that Agent Orange is the most likely causative agent due to the Veteran having very little exposure to other toxins. In September 2021, the Veteran was provided a VA examination. The examiner opined that the Veteran's that the Veteran's lung condition is at least as likely as not related to his in-service herbicide exposure. The examiner rationalized that Agent Orange is known to cause respiratory illness such as interstitial lung disease, and therefore, a nexus is established. The Board acknowledges that an August 2020 examiner found that the Veteran's condition was not related to his service. However, the examiner did not consider the Veteran's diagnoses of interstitial lung disease and right lung lobectomy. While interstitial lung disease and calcified lung nodules are not established diseases presumed by VA to be caused by Agent Orange, in reviewing the January 2020 opinion and the September 2021 VA opinion collectively, and in applying the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds the probative evidence of record weighs in favor of the Veteran. Therefore, the Board finds the January 2020 private opinion and September 2021 VA opinion to be of significant probative value in determining the Veteran's lung disability is related to his active service. The Board notes that the probative value of medical opinion evidence is based on the medical experts' personal examination of the patient, their knowledge, and skill in analyzing the data, and their medical conclusion. As is true with any piece of evidence, the credibility and weight to be attached to these opinions are within the province of the adjudicator. Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993). Here, the physicians showed knowledge of the Veteran's background and based the opinions on the Veteran's lay contentions, the physicians' medical knowledge, and review of the full record. Additionally, the opinions rendered are consistent with the medical evidence of record. See Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993). Accordingly, the Board concludes that the probative evidence of record is for the claim and the benefit of the doubt doctrine has been applied. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed Cir. 2001). JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Negron 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.