BVA9501402 DOCKET NO. 93-08 693 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Hartford, Connecticut THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of asbestos exposure. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Brynn K. Bloomgren, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant had active service from June 1951 to June 1954. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter the Board) on appeal from a June 1992 rating decision of the Hartford, Connecticut, Regional Office (hereinafter RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA), which denied entitlement to service connection for claimed asbestosis. REMAND The veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for residuals of asbestos exposure. He testified regarding claimed asbestos exposure during a personal hearing held at the RO in December 1992. He said that, while in the U.S. Coast Guard, he worked in an old immigration building on Ellis Island, where they were doing repairs to the pipes. He swore that one could see the asbestos floating thick in the air. He stated that he was in the area where they were working on the pipes for two to four hours before moving to another part of the building. The veteran also said that he was aboard the ship for 29 days before arriving in Ellis Island. The veteran's DD Form 214 shows his most significant duty assignment was PSU, Pier 9, ERNY. Other service documents refer to an Ellis Island location. Medical reports of record show that the veteran was diagnosed with a unique disease, pulmonary alveolar proteinosis and nocardiosis with cerebral abscess formation in 1972. Lung biopsy was apparently performed at the Hartford Hospital in Hartford, Connecticut, but these are not available in the claims folder. The veteran later sought treatment for conditions thought to be residuals of the cerebral excision. A chest x-ray performed in December 1977 was noted not to be characteristic of alveolar proteinosis, however, and findings were considered abnormal. There was some pleural or parenchymal fibrous stranding, particularly in the left mid-lung field, and some suggestion of small nodules scattered mostly in the basilar areas. The veteran submitted a VA outpatient treatment report, dated in June 1992, requesting examination to rule out asbestos exposure. VA treatment reports are only available through January 1992. Some of the major occupations involving asbestos exposure include construction work and demolition of old buildings. M21-1, Part VI, 7.68(b)(1), p. 7-XV-6 (September 21, 1992). There is a prevalence of asbestos-related disease among shipyard workers since asbestos was used extensively in military ship construction. The latency period may be of more than 45 years from very little exposure. M21-1, Part VI, 7.68(b)(2), p. 7-XV-7 (September 21, 1992). The radiographic changes indicative of asbestos exposure include interstitial pulmonary fibrosis (asbestosis), pleural effusions and fibrosis, or pleural plaques; granulomatous disease, atelectasis, or calcific changes are not included in this list of representative changes. M21-1, Part VI, 7.68(a)(1), p. 7-XV-6 (September 21, 1992). Based on the foregoing, this case is REMANDED for the following development: 1. The RO should obtain VA outpatient treatment reports dated since from January 1992 to the present for the veteran's pulmonary condition, as well as the lung biopsy studies performed in 1972 at the Hartford Hospital in Hartford, Connecticut, if possible. 2. Once all available records have been obtained, the RO should afford the veteran a special pulmonary examination to determine whether there is clinical evidence consistent with claimed asbestos exposure. All pertinent findings should be discussed in detail. The claims file and a copy of this REMAND shall be made available to the examiner prior to the examination. 3. If, and only if, it is determined that there is evidence of asbestos-related disease, the RO should attempt to verify the claimed asbestos exposure during the veteran's tour of duty at PSU, Pier 9, ERNY, and Ellis Island through the appropriate official channels at the United States Coast Guard. The RO should also contact Ms. Anne Blekov, Superintendent, Ellis Island National Park, U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Statue of Liberty National Monument, Liberty Island, New York, New York 10004, and request information concerning possible asbestos exposure of the veteran while he was stationed on Ellis Island. The RO should specifically ask whether the National Park Service can determine, based on its engineering, reconstruction, and refurbishing records, if asbestos was included in the building design of the Immigration Building located on Ellis Island. The RO should also ask whether asbestos has been ever removed from said building and the date of removal. All information should be included in the record. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted, the RO should furnish the veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case, including a summary of the relevant evidence, citation to the applicable diagnostic codes, and reasons and bases for the decision, and be afforded the opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further appellate review. In determining whether there has been possible asbestos exposure, the RO should consider the location of possible duration of potential exposure to asbestos as discussed in M21-1, Part VI, 7.68 (September 21, 1992). Competent medical evidence which indicates that the claim is plausible or possible is required to set forth a well-grounded claim. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). If it is determined that the veteran has not submitted a well-grounded claim, however, the VA is under no duty to assist him further in the development of his claim. In such as case, the case may be vacated so that the veteran may begin on a clean slate if a well- grounded claim is presented. Grottveit, 5 Vet.App. at 93; Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136, 140 (1994). BETTINA S. CALLAWAY Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1993).