• Topics

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Posts

    • Thank you Vync for the warm welcome and reply. The addendum was made by the C & P examiner, but 10 weeks later. They are saying my progression is the typical rate of progression for my spine issues, therefore not related. That leaves me unsure if I should appeal this or claim it as chronic low back pain. I have several records to support as such. Also, when the examiner quoted my angles they were much lower than anything sound. A spinal curve doesn't shrink and then exaggerate again a few years later.    
    • Okay everyone, I have been MIA for a few days to try and collect myself.  I received a call from my Women's advocate at the local VA who can see my file.  I am beyond upset and just deflated.  The DRO Steve Wilbur held true to his reputation.  He called me on August 18th, 2016 to tell me he was going to decide my NOD within the week, but he actually lied to me because he decided it that day.....DENIED!!!  To further more upset me, my claim has so many errors from the beginning of the original decision to today's decision.  We went over everything on the phone and we found so many errors.  I am going to wait for the SOC so that I get the Form 9.  At first I said "F" it and I was going to give up and just apply for my right foot secondary to my left ankle but I thought about it and the more and more I did, the more and more I got so pissed off!   Over the weekend another Veteran and I spoke on the phone.  He too had the same DRO, Steve Wilbur and was denied on the same day as me.  The other interesting thing....my boyfriend received his SOC in the mail for his denial on the same day and guess who was the DRO????  Yep, Steve Wilbur.... Apparently Steve Wilbur has a very bad reputation in WACO.  I was told by this veteran that his attorney is heading there today to raise hell over this situation.  I emailed Robert McDonald for what it is worth too.  Both of us had solid evidence to overturn the original decisions.  I feel we were both retaliated due to the fact that we emailed Robert McDonald a few weeks ago for an update.  This is devastating and now I have years of waiting because of Steve Wilbur. When I was on the phone with my rep at the VA, she was reviewing the notes and Steve Wilbur has so many mistakes noted on my SOC.  One issue is the fact that my original C&P exam from July 2013, the examiner gave NO RATIONALE, however several months later, a medical opinion was given by a doctor who NEVER saw me but rather took a quick glance of my documents and denied me even after the fact that the examiner from the C&P exam noted both my DBQ's from my podiatrist and stated my injuries were in-service.  Furthermore, I had the letter from my current podiatrist stating all my injuries were in-service. So disappointed but I will continue to fight this!
    • Welcome to Hadit! Was the addendum made by the C&P examiner, a non-C&P doctor, or possibly someone working at the VARO? How long after service did they claim the condition progressed after service?    
    • With the 100% P & T decision the VA should have mentioned or enclosed the Chapter 35 applications for your dependents.They usually send the Chapter 35 pamphlet as well, which is linked below.   The dependents are also eligible for CHAMPVA  which also can be searched for here.I dont know how VA informs vets these days of their dependent's potential for CHAMPVA  in 100% P & T awards. As I recall I received a VA letter advising me on CHAMPVA and that has to be applied for.The letter was separate from the 100% P & T posthumous award that included Chap 35 apps for me and my daughter.More info here. http://www.benefits.va.gov/gibill/docs/pamphlets/ch35_pamphlet_2.pdf   http://www.va.gov/vaforms/medical/pdf/vha-10-10d-fill.pdf http://www.va.gov/purchasedcare/programs/dependents/champva/      
    • @Bonzai Great to see you!!!  Have you checked out http://www.disabledveterans.org I think it will helpful in your fight for Voc Rehab. We have had a lot of complaints about Voc Rehab so do keep us posted on your progress. You may even want to think about starting your own blog about it. That will give you something to do. I did it and here we are 20 years later. About a blog, you can use your photographs and your wive's to illustrate your posts. It might just turn out to be your thing.

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:



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

Any thoughts out there regarding this?


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-


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:

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


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.)


Share this post

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