Citation Nr: 22018689 Decision Date: 03/30/22 Archive Date: 03/30/22 DOCKET NO. 17-49 178 DATE: March 30, 2022 ORDER Service connection for a pulmonary disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to whether the Veteran's pulmonary disability is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a pulmonary disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1979 to August 2000. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2013 rating decision. This issue was previously before the Board in April 2020 when the Veteran's claim was recharacterized more broadly to include any pulmonary disability. See Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79 (2009) (holding a claimant may adequately identify the disability for which compensation benefits are sought by referring to a body part or system that is disabled or by describing the symptoms of that disability). Service connection for a pulmonary disability is denied. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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 in service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for chronic disabilities if such is shown to have been manifested to a compensable degree within one year after the Veteran was separated from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The presence of a chronic disability at any time during the claim process can justify a grant of service connection, even if the disability has since resolved or where the most recent diagnosis is negative. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). It is the policy of VA to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent with the facts in each case, with all reasonable doubt to be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. In the current appeal, the Veteran contends he has pulmonary effusions related to his active-duty service. See November 2013 Notice of Disagreement. In December 1986, the Veteran's active-duty service medical records reflect a report of, and treatment for, pneumonia of the left lung. His service medical records also show instances of upper respiratory infections. Furthermore, the Veteran's May 2000 Report of Medical Examination notes a normal clinical evaluation for the lungs and chest, and no active pneumonia or breathing problems were noted. On his May 2000 Report of Medical History on retirement, the Veteran reported in the negative for chronic or frequent colds, shortness of breath, pain or pressure in the chest, and a chronic cough. Post-service, in July 2012, the Veteran was referred for an evaluation for pulmonary pleural thickening of the left lung. He reported having been in good health until November 2011 when he reported fever, chills, and a cough. He was treated with antibiotics, and the symptoms were noted to have resolved. The Veteran noted some mild chest pain with deep inspiration on the left side, and imaging showed pleural thickening. The report then notes the Veteran had pleural thickening most likely related to pneumonia in November 2011. He was treated with antibiotics at that time. A VA examination is of record from June 2020. A diagnosis of resolved left lower lobe pneumonia was noted. The examiner stated the condition was treated and had resolved, and there were no additional complaints or treatments of pneumonia during active-duty service. The examiner further stated the Veteran had developed another pneumonia in November 2012 or twelve years after separation from service. They observed private treatment records note imaging, after that event, showed pleurisy with pleural thickening, which was concluded to have been due to the resolving pneumonia. The examiner found no additional documented respiratory issues, and no current treatment was found. The VA examiner also provided an opinion in June 2020. The examiner noted all available medical records and remand documents had been reviewed. They further state the Veteran's service medical records show he was diagnosed with upper respiratory infections in March 1985 and April 1997, and both had resolved with treatment. They also note the Veteran was diagnosed with left lower lobe pneumonia in December 1986, which was treated and noted in the records to have been resolving. The examiner found no other documented complaints, signs, symptoms, testing, or treatment of pneumonia during active-duty service to include the separation exam, which they note was negative for pneumonia indicating the infection had resolved. The examiner then finds the pneumonia diagnosed twelve years after separation from service is unrelated to the resolved pneumonia of 1986. In concluding that a nexus is not established, they also found no documented evidence of any current diagnosed respiratory condition. At the time the Veteran sought service connection for a pulmonary disability in August 2012, he had just been diagnosed with pulmonary pleural thickening of the left lung in July 2012. This diagnosis slightly predated the filing of his claim, but a recent diagnosis of disability prior to a veteran filing a claim for benefits based on that disability is relevant evidence that must be considered in adjudicating that matter. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet.App. 289, 294 (2013). Thus, the Board recognizes this evidence as showing the presence of a current disability, although no pulmonary disorder was subsequently shown during the appellate period. Concerning a nexus between the Veteran's pulmonary condition shown in 2011/2012 and his active service, the June 2020 VA examiner concluded that the pneumonia diagnosed twelve years after separation from service was unrelated to the resolved pneumonia of 1986. The Board finds the VA examiner's opinion is highly probative as it presents the medical opinion of a competent expert, informed by review of the claims file, and presented with a persuasive discussion of the examiner's rationale. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). The Board has considered the Veteran's assertion that he has a current pulmonary disorder related to his "multiple bouts" of pneumonia in service. The Veteran is not competent to opine as to the specific etiology of a condition, particularly a condition diagnosed more than ten years after his separation from service, as this is medically complex issue. Thus, his lay assertions do not constitute evidence upon which service connection can be granted. In any event, the Board ultimately assigns greater probative weight to the June 2020 VA examiner's opinion who is a trained medical professional. Accordingly, for the above reasons, the evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to whether service connection for a pulmonary disability is warranted. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against service connection for a pulmonary disability. The benefit of the doubt doctrine, see 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), is therefore not for application as to this claim. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application). P. M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Buck Denton 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.