ANEURYSM ANY LARGE ARTERY

Summary

The Veteran served from September 1962 to June 1966. The appellant, the Veteran's surviving spouse, appeals the denial of service connection for a heart disability, specifically aortic aneurysm, claiming it was due to in-service asbestos exposure. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) favorably found that the Veteran had a current diagnosis of aortic aneurysm during the appeal period and conceded in-service exposure to asbestos. However, the Board found that the evidence did not establish a causal link between the Veteran's heart condition and his military service or asbestos exposure. The Veteran's service treatment records showed no indication of cardiovascular issues. The first manifestation of aortic aneurysm and coronary artery disease occurred decades after service. A March 2024 VA examination diagnosed aortic aneurysm, with the examiner opining that asbestos exposure does not cause cardiovascular problems, citing medical literature. A private medical opinion submitted after the Board hearing linked the Veteran's coronary artery disease to his cause of death, not his service. Lay testimony from the appellant and witnesses was deemed not probative due to lack of medical expertise. The Board found the competent medical evidence, including negative STRs and the negative VA nexus opinion, weighed against the claim. Therefore, service connection for the heart disability was denied.

Rationale

No in-service complaints, treatment, diagnosis, or pathology for cardiovascular disability in STRs.; First manifestation of aortic aneurysm and coronary artery disease occurred decades after service.; VA examiner opined asbestos exposure does not cause cardiovascular problems.; Private medical opinion linked coronary artery disease to cause of death, not service.; Lay testimony lacked probative value due to lack of medical expertise.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26019935
Decision Date: 03/05/26	Archive Date: 03/05/26

DOCKET NO. 250521-548040
DATE: March 5, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, claimed as aortic aneurysm, to include as due to asbestos exposure, is denied. 

FINDING OF FACT

The weight of the persuasive evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran's heart disabilities, including aortic aneurysm, were incurred in service or related to his conceded exposure to asbestos. Coronary artery disease was not shown to have been chronic in service, did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of service discharge, and continuity of symptomatology has not been established. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, to include aortic aneurysm, as due to asbestos exposure, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116, 1131, 5103; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.  

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1962 to June 1966. The Veteran died on [REDACTED], 2024. The appellant is his surviving spouse and has been validly substituted in this appeal. See September 2024 Notification Letter. 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2025 decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

In the May 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the appellant elected the Hearing docket. 

A Board hearing was held on November 12, 2025, before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ).  The hearing transcript is of record and shows the appellant and two witnesses, V.K. (friend of Veteran and appellant) and C.J.W. (son of Veteran and appellant), were sworn in and provided testimony.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2025 AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the appellant or her representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. 

If the appellant would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, she may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

The Board has recharacterized the claim on appeal to more broadly reflect the medical evidence of record and the appellant's contentions that the Veteran's numerous heart disabilities, to include aortic aneurysm, were caused by his active service. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (holding that when a claimant makes a claim, he/she is seeking service connection for symptoms regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled); see also Brokowsky v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009) (generally, the scope of a disability claim includes any disability that may reasonably be encompassed by a veteran's description of the claim, reported symptoms, and the other evidence of record).

Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, to include as due to asbestos exposure, is denied.

The appellant contends that the Veteran's heart disabilities/aortic aneurysm were related to his in-service exposure to asbestos while performing his military occupational duties aboard naval vessels.  See July 11, 2023, VA Form 21-526EZ. 

Initially, the Board notes the AOJ favorably found that the Veteran was diagnosed with aortic aneurysm during the appeal period. See May 2025 Rating Decision. Additionally, the AOJ determined that evidence shows the Veteran participated in
 any disability that may reasonably be encompassed by a veteran's description of the claim, reported symptoms, and the other evidence of record).

Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, to include as due to asbestos exposure, is denied.

The appellant contends that the Veteran's heart disabilities/aortic aneurysm were related to his in-service exposure to asbestos while performing his military occupational duties aboard naval vessels.  See July 11, 2023, VA Form 21-526EZ. 

Initially, the Board notes the AOJ favorably found that the Veteran was diagnosed with aortic aneurysm during the appeal period. See May 2025 Rating Decision. Additionally, the AOJ determined that evidence shows the Veteran participated in a toxic exposure risk activity (TERA) due to exposure to asbestos during service. Id. The Board is bound by these findings. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). 

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection may be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) where there is evidence of a chronic disease, such as arteriosclerosis, in service or during an applicable presumption period under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 or upon a showing of continuity of symptomology after service.  As below, the Veteran was diagnosed with coronary artery disease during the appeal period on review. Because coronary artery disease is a form of arteriosclerosis, presumptive service connection may be established with symptoms or diagnosis of the disorder within one year of service separation and was not shown as chronic during service.  Upon review of the evidence, the Board finds that signs or symptoms of coronary artery disease did not manifest during the applicable presumptive period. 

Given the AOJ's favorable findings regarding a current disability during the period on appeal prior to the Veteran's death, and his conceded in-service asbestos exposure, the question in this case is whether any heart disability, to include aortic aneurysm, was causally related to the Veteran's conceded exposure to asbestos during service. 

The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) do not show complaints, treatment, diagnosis or any abnormal pathology indicating the presence of a cardiovascular disability. 

The record shows the first manifestation of a cardiovascular disability, to include aortic aneurysm and coronary artery disease, occurred decades after the Veteran's service separation in June 1966. 

Shortly prior to his death, the Veteran presented for an in-person VA arteries and veins examination in March 2024 and was diagnosed with aortic aneurysm, ascending, thoracic or abdominal. The Veteran reported he had been previously diagnosed with abdominal aortic aneurysm in 2003 or 2004 and underwent surgical repair of the aneurysm around 2009/2010.  The examiner stated the Veteran had previously been diagnosed with an aortic aneurysm but did not currently have an aortic aneurysm or any post-surgical residuals due to surgical treatment for aortic aneurysm around 2009/2010. The examiner indicated that VA treatment reports dated in January 2023 show the Veteran had a history of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair but there was no further information regarding the Veteran's aortic aneurysm. 

The Veteran also presented for an in-person VA heart examination in April 2024 and was diagnosed as having coronary artery disease status post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stents and supraventricular tachycardia. The Veteran reported his coronary artery disease onset was in 2006 after he saw his medical provider for dyspnea.

The March 2024 VA examiner opined that, after considering the total potential exposure through all applicable military deployments of the Veteran and the synergistic, combined effect of all TERAs of the Veteran, his multiple cardiovascular diagnoses, including aortic aneurysm, coronary artery disease, and supraventricular arrhythmia were less likely than not caused by the indicated TERA. The examiner reasoned that breathing asbestos mainly causes problems in the lungs and the membrane that surrounds the lungs. The asbestos-related diseases include asbestosis, pleural plaques, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. The examiner stated that
. The Veteran reported his coronary artery disease onset was in 2006 after he saw his medical provider for dyspnea.

The March 2024 VA examiner opined that, after considering the total potential exposure through all applicable military deployments of the Veteran and the synergistic, combined effect of all TERAs of the Veteran, his multiple cardiovascular diagnoses, including aortic aneurysm, coronary artery disease, and supraventricular arrhythmia were less likely than not caused by the indicated TERA. The examiner reasoned that breathing asbestos mainly causes problems in the lungs and the membrane that surrounds the lungs. The asbestos-related diseases include asbestosis, pleural plaques, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. The examiner stated that medical literature and science does not support a nexus that asbestos exposure causes cardiovascular problems, including coronary artery disease and supraventricular arrhythmia.  The opinion was based on a review of medical literature available at https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/asbestos/indiex.asp which discussed the development of specific respiratory diseases in certain populations exposed to asbestos. 

Following the Board hearing, to support her claim, the appellant submitted a private medical opinion dated in December 2025, rendered by Dr. C.M., MD of Light Family Wellness. See December 2025 Medical Treatment Record - Non-Government Facility. The opinion concluded that the Veteran's coronary artery disease contributed materially to his death in June 2024 by reducing his ability to survive pneumonitis, sepsis, ileus, and cardiac arrest.  She further stated that the Veteran would have had a higher likelihood of surviving had he not had underlying coronary artery disease.  

It is important to note that the private opinion linked the Veteran's coronary artery disease to his cause of death rather than his military service.  For clarification purposes, it should be noted that the claim on appeal is for entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, to include aortic aneurysm. In other words, the issue on appeal is not for entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death. The central inquiry in this appeal is whether the Veteran's heart disorder/aortic aneurysm was incurred in service or was otherwise related to an in-service event, injury or disease including asbestos exposure. 

Moreover, at the November 2025 Board hearing, the VLJ explained to the appellant and witnesses that the issue on appeal was entitlement to service connection for aortic aneurysm.  Additionally, the VLJ conveyed the favorable findings above that were made by the AOJ and which resulted in two elements of service connection being met. Lastly, the VLJ indicated what evidence was needed to help the appellant in substantiating her claim that prior to his death, the Veteran had a heart disability related to his active service.

Therefore, the central issue in the appeal is whether there was a nexus between the Veteran's heart disability/aortic aneurysm and his service, including exposure to asbestos. The private medical opinion submitted by the appellant after her Board hearing does not address this question and is unrelated to the issue at hand. The December 2025 medical opinion does not discuss whether the Veteran had a disability diagnosed prior to his death during the appeal period, that was related to his active service. At a basic level, the opinion fails to mention the Veteran's military service or his in-service asbestos exposure. 

Consideration was given to lay testimony, including the Veteran's reported medical history, his theory of causation, and the hearing testimony of the appellant and witnesses.  However, as lay persons, neither the Veteran, appellant or witnesses at the hearing, have been shown to have the medical knowledge and training required to link the Veteran's aortic aneurysm to military service and asbestos exposure.  Such a determination requires complex knowledge of the cardiovascular system and its interaction with external factors, to include potential toxic exposure to asbestos, that is beyond lay capacity. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Thus, the Board finds that the lay opinions have no probative value. 

The Board affords greater probative weight to the competent medical evidence of record, including the Veteran's STRs showing no diagnosis or underlying pathology indicative of a heart disorder and the negative VA nexus opinion. The Board is required to ensure that medical opinions are made on the basis of sufficient facts or data and the application of reliable medical principles as they have been here. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (holding that a medical opinion obtains probative weight from "factually accurate, fully articulated, sound reasoning for the conclusion").

As above, the private medical opinion submitted by the appellant does not address whether the Veteran had a heart disability that was related to his service, including asbestos exposure. Consequently, the Board finds it
 medical evidence of record, including the Veteran's STRs showing no diagnosis or underlying pathology indicative of a heart disorder and the negative VA nexus opinion. The Board is required to ensure that medical opinions are made on the basis of sufficient facts or data and the application of reliable medical principles as they have been here. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (holding that a medical opinion obtains probative weight from "factually accurate, fully articulated, sound reasoning for the conclusion").

As above, the private medical opinion submitted by the appellant does not address whether the Veteran had a heart disability that was related to his service, including asbestos exposure. Consequently, the Board finds it has no probative value. 

As the competent and probative evidence of record weighs against the claim for service connection for a heart disability, the benefit-of-the-doubt standard does not apply, and the appeal must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

 

 

Jenna Brant

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Krunic, Susan

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.