Search this Topic:
Apr 20 11 11:56 PM
Well I did some research on the blump hangers and asbestos and this is what I found in a study done on the hangers.
Walls are covered with cement asbestos
board. The box beams and hangar end wall enclosures are also
covered with asbestos cement board. Shops and offices are
provided with gas and electrical service, lighting, heating, a fire
sprinkler system, and rest room facilities.
Apr 21 11 8:10 AM
Apr 21 11 9:06 AM
Apr 21 11 9:33 AM
Submit the asbestos information (might want to research the connection between asbestos and lungs first). There are many links betyween asbestos exposure and lung problems on the Internet.Here is one:http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/asbestos_mesothelioma/asbestos-asthma-10006.html
Apr 21 11 10:52 AM
Apr 21 11 3:07 PM
1976Taylor454 wrote: Im going to call rep for vets and fight this until i go to my grave which they are sending me quicker with BS like this.
Apr 21 11 3:33 PM
1976Taylor454 wrote:Ok, here goes. Initial claim was Tinnitus and Degenerative arthritis in right knee. Then in Sept of 2011 I added Hypertension, Bilaterial hearing loss and Asthma. All three of the secondaries were denied. They granted 10% for the tinnitus and 10% for the right knee. The left knee was deferred. They said though there was hearing loss present it did not meet their requirments. Asthma was I didnt have before being stationed in blump hangers full of asbestos. As well as all the other older buildings on the Tustin and El Toro air bases that had it in them. Hypertension, they didnt get documented util 2007 when it was present way before I got off of active duty. Its funny how the records that prove these things are lost.
Apr 21 11 3:49 PM
1976Taylor454 wrote:thanks for the link. I also found out that Marines stationed at the El Toro were exposed to TCE and PCE. I am going to the VA rep that helped me file the claim and get the NOD done today. I will show her what I found on the asbestos issue. I also have to call the Loma Linda VA and schedule and appointment with my dr. As far as the hearing loss goes. They stated that as Admin I wasnt exposed to lound noises. I was in a CH53 Squadron. I also flew alot when time permitted. Just being on the air base exposed you to loud jets taking off and landing.
thanks for the link. I also found out that Marines stationed at the El Toro were exposed to TCE and PCE. I am going to the VA rep that helped me file the claim and get the NOD done today. I will show her what I found on the asbestos issue. I also have to call the Loma Linda VA and schedule and appointment with my dr. As far as the hearing loss goes. They stated that as Admin I wasnt exposed to lound noises. I was in a CH53 Squadron. I also flew alot when time permitted. Just being on the air base exposed you to loud jets taking off and landing.
Here's BVA claim regarding asthma due to asbestos exposure
just to show the factors that you will be up against and factors
that can be used to either help grant or deny the issue.
Although the Veteran in this case served in the Republic of
Vietnam during the applicable time period, presumptive
service connection is not available under 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.309(e) for asthma. In this regard, the Board notes that
the Secretary reiterated in 2007 that there is no positive
association between exposure to herbicides and any condition
for which he has not specifically determined that a
presumption of service connection is warranted. See 72 Fed.
Reg. 32395 (Jun. 12, 2007). Thus, in the absence of any
medical evidence linking asthma to his service, service
connection on a direct or secondary basis is not warranted
for asthma. Stefl. In this case, there is no such medical
evidence linking the Veteran's asthma to his service.
Accordingly, service connection for asthma due to exposure to
herbicide agents is not warranted.
Turning next to the Veteran's claim for service connection on
the basis of exposure to asbestos, claims involving asbestos
exposure must be analyzed under VA administrative protocols.
Ennis v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 523 (1993); McGinty v. Brown, 4
Vet. App. 428 (1993). Although there is no specific
statutory or regulatory guidance regarding claims for
residuals of asbestos exposure, VA has several guidelines for
compensation claims based on asbestos exposure. See M21-1,
VBA Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1 Manual Rewrite (M21-1
MR), Part IV, Subpart ii, Ch. 2, Section C, Topic 9 and
Section H, Topic 29 (Dec. 13, 2005).
Additionally, the Board must follow development procedures
specifically applicable to asbestos-related claims. Ashford
v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 120 (1997). VA must determine whether
military records demonstrate evidence of asbestos exposure
during service, whether there was pre-service or post-service
occupational or other asbestos exposure, and whether there is
a relationship between asbestos exposure and the claimed
disease. Mere exposure to a potentially harmful agent is
insufficient for eligibility for VA disability benefits. The
medical evidence must show not only a currently diagnosed
disability, but also a nexus, that is, a causal connection,
between the current disability and exposure to asbestos in
service. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999).
The Veteran contends that he was exposed to asbestos during
service and that as a result of this exposure he developed an
asbestos-related pulmonary disorder. Specifically, he
asserts that he was exposed to asbestos as a result of
handling machine guns that required wearing asbestos gloves
to change the barrels due to the high levels of heat. The
Veteran reports that gloves would tear and asbestos fibers
would contact with his skin and clothes. The Veteran's
service records do not demonstrate that he was exposed to
asbestos during service.
Even if the Veteran was exposed to asbestos in service, mere
exposure to a potentially harmful agent is insufficient for
eligibility for VA disability benefits. The medical evidence
must show not only a currently diagnosed disability, but also
a nexus, that is, a causal connection, between the current
disability and exposure to asbestos in service. Hickson v.
West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999).
The Veteran's service treatment records are negative for any
complaints, findings, or diagnosis of respiratory problems.
They are also negative for asbestosis or another asbestos-
related disease. Because no respiratory problem was found on
examination at separation, nor shortly after the October 1969
assault, the Board finds that there was no evidence of a
chronic respiratory disability, including asthma, at
separation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).
The chest X-ray report from the July 1976 VA examination also
showed no abnormal lung findings. Images of the lung fields
showed no acute or active disease, and there was no evidence
of any mass shadows.
The first medical evidence showing any respiratory problems
comes from the October 2003 hospital summary report from West
Virginia University Hospital. It was noted that the
Veteran's hospitalization was complicated by shortness of
breath. The Veteran was first treated with supplemental
oxygen and then with medication management.
The next medical evidence comes from a November 2004 VA
examination report in conjunction with the claims for loss of
taste and smell. It was noted in that report that the
Veteran complained of difficulty breathing since he was
discharged from service. He reported that his symptoms had
become progressively worse over the past two years. The
examiner noted the Veteran had nasal obstructions, but he did
not examine the Veteran for any other respiratory or lung
The claims folder also contains the Veteran's VA treatment
records. These records show the Veteran was diagnosed with
mild bronchial asthma in January 2007, but the Veteran had
reported having breathing problems since 1968. An October
2007 VA pulmonary consult record noted that the Veteran
reported his asthma was triggered by physical exertion, cold
weather, anxiety, cleaning agents and pollens. On physical
examination, the VA pulmonologist noted the Veteran's lungs
were clear with no ronchi or wheezes.
In December 2007, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in
conjunction with his claim. The examiner noted that the
Veteran's claims folder had not been reviewed, but it had
been reviewed by the VA staff pulmonologist. The Veteran was
diagnosed with asthma. The examiner noted that the chest X-
ray results revealed no pulmonary nodules and the pulmonary
function test (PFT) showed moderate airflow obstruction. The
examiner found that there was no evidence of asbestos
exposure, asbestosis, or pulmonary fibrosis shown in the PFT
or chest X-ray results. The examiner found that the
Veteran's asthma was not caused by any exposure to asbestos.
At no time has any treating physician related the Veteran's
asthma to his alleged in-service exposure to asbestos.
The medical evidence of record shows that the Veteran has
bronchial asthma. However, the medical evidence of record
does not establish that the Veteran has an asbestos-related
respiratory disorder. In May 2007 correspondence, the
Veteran stated that he sought to clarify his breathing claim
by stating his respiratory problems were related to his
chronic asthma and rhinitis. He stated that "[a]t this
time, there is no evidence of any disease from asbestos
exposure." The Veteran's statement is supported by the
findings from the December 2007 VA examination report. The
Veteran no longer asserts, and the medical evidence of record
does not support a finding that asthma is etiologically
related to any in-service asbestos exposure. On VA
examination in December 2007, the examiner specifically found
that the Veteran's pulmonary disorder (asthma) was
inconsistent with exposure to asbestos. With no evidence of
any current asbestos-related disability or respiratory
disorder that is related to his military service, service
connection for asthma due to asbestos exposure is not
Service connection may be granted when all the evidence
establishes a medical nexus between military service and
current complaints. Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328
(1997); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992). As
stated above, the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service
connection for asthma is not warranted on the basis of either
exposure to asbestos or herbicide agents. Additionally, the
weight of the evidence of record does not support a finding
that the Veteran's asthma is otherwise directly related to
service. There is no evidence of treatment or complaint for
any respiratory or lung problems during the Veteran's
service. The Veteran's lungs were evaluated as normal just
prior to his discharge. Moreover, the first medical evidence
showing that the Veteran's breathing problems is not shown
until 2003. This evidence weighs heavily against the
Veteran's claim on a direct basis. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see
Maxson, 12 Vet. App. at 453. Finally, the record lacks
medical evidence establishing a possible relationship between
the Veteran's asthma and his period of active service.
The Veteran has attributed his asthma to exposure to asbestos
and herbicide agents in service. However, as a layperson,
the Veteran is not competent to give a medical opinion on
causation or aggravation of a medical condition. Bostain v.
West, 11 Vet. App. 124 (1998); Routen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App.
183 (1997); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992)
(layperson is generally not capable of opining on matters
requiring medical knowledge). The Board acknowledges that
the Veteran is competent to give evidence about what he
experienced. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994).
Additionally, the Veteran's statements may be competent to
support a claim for service connection where the events or
the presence of disability, or symptoms of a disability are
subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1153(a); 38 C.F.R.
§§ 3.303(a), 3.159(a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331
(2006). However, a respiratory disorder or a disorder of the
lungs, as contrasted with symptoms of breathing or lung
difficulties, is not subject to lay diagnosis. The Veteran
can report having shortness of breath or difficulty
breathing. However, these are subjective symptoms and not
readily identifiable the way that varicose veins may be
observed, objectively. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303
(2007). There are many different respiratory disorders. The
Veteran does not have the medical expertise to discern the
nature of any current respiratory diagnosis nor does he have
the medical expertise to provide an opinion regarding the
etiology. In sum, the issue does not involve a simple
diagnosis. The Veteran is competent to report that he has
been told of a diagnosis of a respiratory disorder, but, as
noted, he is not competent to provide a medical opinion
regarding the etiology. While the Veteran purports that his
symptoms support the current diagnosis by a medical
professional, his statements alone are not competent to
provide the medical nexus and a medical professional has not
made this connection. Thus, the Veteran's lay assertions are
not competent or sufficient. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Gravely v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 136
(2005) (noting that the absence of in-service or contemporary
medical evidence is a factor in weighing the probative value
of lay testimony).
The Board has also considered the lay assertions of the
Veteran and his friends and family members indicating that
his breathing problems had an onset in service. Although the
Veteran, his friends, and family members are competent to
attest to his observations of his disability, such as the
onset of symptomatology, they are not competent to provide an
etiological nexus between his current complaints and any in-
service problems. Additionally, it is noted that the Veteran
has also been diagnosed with rhinitis that has been related
to service, which may account for his reports of breathing
difficulties since service as oppose to his asthma. As lay
persons, the Veteran and his friends and family members are
not competent to offer opinions that require medical
knowledge. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494-
95 (1992). Therefore, to the extent that their statements
provide an etiological link between his symptoms since
service and his asthma, this is not competent or persuasive
evidence. The preponderance of the competent medical
evidence of record that is against the claim that the
Veteran's asthma is directly related to service.
Apr 21 11 9:23 PM
Apr 21 11 9:36 PM
Apr 21 11 9:44 PM
Apr 21 11 9:58 PM
Did u call the # to locate your records? I put the info in an earlier post they took care of me when I was told that my records were lost. VA does not care about your research. VA wants proof that you, not the masses, were hurt or exposed. VA will not read a research paper. They want medical documentation that show you were hurt injured exposed during the time you served. 50% sc SSDI
Apr 22 11 8:12 AM
Apr 22 11 12:42 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.