vlb-all-products

vlb-c-file-manual







Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Old 5311

Asbestos Related Lung Disease, Denied!

25 posts in this topic

My diagnosis was for asbestos related lung desease; emphysema. Maybe I went wrong using the word "asbestosis". Who knows? The damage is located in the upper lobes vs lower. This is what the RO emphasized.

Quote from my Rep:

For VA purposes any post drug predicted FEV1 reading above 80% are considered normal, your's was 108%, this is one of the reasons the VA Dr says your breathing problrems are un related to asbestos, he also says you have dammage to the upper lobes of the lungs and asbestos always effects the lower lobes first, so if you have asbestos exposure related lung disease and show effects to the upper lobe, you should also see it in the lower lobes, again according to the scans you submitted, you only have involvement in the upper lobes - and none in the lower lobes.

My VAMC test results:

FEC: PREDICTED-4.95. PRE DRUG REPORTED% 3.90. PRE DRUG PREDICTED 79 <. POST DRUG PREDICTED 95. %CHANGE 20.

FE1: PREDICTED 3.42 PRE DRUG REPORTED% 3.24 PRE DRUG PREDICTED 95 POST DRUG REPORTED % 3.71. POST DRUG PREDICTED 108. %CHANGE 14.

I was also exposed to Sodasorb and Barylyme while diving..

Any thoughts out there regarding this?

Thanks and MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Edited by Old 5311

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



M21-1, Part VI February 5, 2004

Change 110

in some respects. Chrysotile products have their initial effects on the small airways of the lung, cause asbestosis more slowly, but result in lung cancer more often. The African fibers have more initial effects on the small blood vessels of the lung, the alveolar walls and the pleura, and result in more mesothelioma. True chrysotile fibers are hollow and extremely thin. All the other varieties of asbestos fibers are solid.

(3) Persons with asbestos exposure have an increased incidence of bronchial, lung, pharyngolaryngeal, gastrointestinal and urogenital cancer. The risk of developing bronchial cancer is increased in current cigarette smokers who have had asbestos exposure. Mesotheliomas are not associated with cigarette smoking. Lung cancer associated with asbestos exposure originates in the lung parenchyma rather than the bronchi. About 50 percent of persons with asbestosis eventually develop lung cancer, about 17 percent develop mesothelioma, and about 10 percent develop gastrointestinal and urogenital cancers.

All persons with significant asbestosis develop cor pulmonale and those who do not die from cancer often die from heart failure secondary to cor pulmonale.

b. Occupational Exposure etc

This is the significant part of asbestos claims within M21-1 -

do you have your complete medical records from VA? as well as the actual results of any asbestos C & P exams?

I am concerned that VA is talking about "lobes" yet they might not be fully considering that you could have affects in

"Lung cancer associated with asbestos exposure originates in the lung parenchyma rather than the bronchi."

They seem to be looking at lung cancer regs rather than any other lung disease-

This vet was denied but it shows what the VA is looking for in order to service connect asbestos-

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files3/0515258.txt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS- if I were you I would absolutley file a claim on the affects of the

sodasorb and barylyme as one other reason you have lung disease.

This is one report I just found but there might be more on the web as to the negative affects of these chemicals:

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:KRXbLQh...&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

When you handled this were you issued protective gear?

Or was it part of the diving breathing apparatus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply and link to MSDS and the 2nd link. I used sodasorb and barylyme as a CO2 absorbant extensively while deep, mixed gas diving. While handling these chemicals no PPE was advised or required to be used. As a Machinist Mate I had extensive exposure to asbestos in the 60's and 70's so all the private physicians determined AB must be the cause of the emphysema.

The damage is detected in the upper lobes just as if I were a heavy smoker. In fact I am a life long non-smoker. The upper lobes seem to be the deciding factor in the denial. In addition I have above average lung capacity 6 1/2 L, perhaps this is a factor why I did so well on the pulmonary function test. I have a referral with a pulmonary specialist so soon I may have enough information for a well founded NOD.

Thanks again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old5311

Persistence is the key. The VA just hopes you will give up and walk away. Those who have persisted here on Hadit have most often won their claims. We have some great examples here in Berta and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Berta and Old5311,

What do you make of this part of the appeal?

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit (Federal Circuit) has recognized the Board's

"authority to discount the weight and probity of evidence in

light of its own inherent characteristics and its

relationship to other items of evidence..."

First, does "in light of its own inherent characteristics" give the VA a broad license to deny if a VA exam contradicts private medical evidence?

Second, Old5311, who diagnosed "asbestos related lung disease; emphysema"?

I read "asbestos related lung disease; emphysema" as two lung conditions--obstructive and restrictive (the semicolon reasonably taking the place of the coordinating conjunction "and"). So you do have a diagnosis of asbestosis (which simply means lung disease caused by exposure to asbestos particles), and the RO is without cause to discount the weight and probity of that evidence.

I think an appeal point would be just that--the VA failed to give weight and probity to your competent medical evidence... in light of its relationship to other items of evidence, such as "asbestos-related lung disease" clearly being diagnosed, and because being a lifelong nonsmoker and having no known occupational exposure to harmful elements (I'm assuming here) allows no other plausible etiology for lung disease.

What gets me on this denial is basing it on no lower lobe involvement when the diagnosis of "asbestos-related lung disease" by VA's own admission means the lower lobes are involved. Maybe the scans you provided were not specific to asbestos exposure. Besides that, some are technically difficult and don't show everything. I think a good IMO could box this denial in and win this claim. (And a more positive and helpful SO wouldn't hurt either.)

Carrie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0