ASBESTOSIS

Summary

The Veteran, an Army service member who served from January 1964 to December 1967, including service in the Republic of Vietnam, appeals the denial of an initial compensable disability rating for his service-connected asbestosis. The Veteran sought an increased rating, contending his condition warranted a higher disability evaluation. The Board reviewed three VA examinations conducted in September 2022, May 2023, and June 2025. These examinations documented the Veteran's subjective complaints of worsening fatigue, shortness of breath, and dry cough. However, the objective pulmonary function test (PFT) results, specifically the Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) and Diffusing Capacity of the Lung for Carbon Monoxide (DLCO), did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 6833. The Board noted that while the Veteran's post-bronchodilator FVC results were sometimes within the range for a higher rating, the regulations require using pre-bronchodilator results if they are poorer than post-bronchodilator results, or if the examiner deems them more reflective of disability. The Board found the objective medical evidence, particularly the PFT results and the examiners' opinions, weighed against a higher rating. Lay statements regarding symptoms were considered competent but less probative than the objective medical findings. The Board concluded that the evidence did not support a compensable rating for the asbestosis during the period under appeal, and the claim for an increase was denied.

Rationale

Objective medical evidence from VA examinations did not meet criteria for compensable rating.; Pulmonary function test results did not meet FVC or DLCO thresholds for higher ratings.; Lay statements were considered competent but less probative than objective medical findings.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26033292
Decision Date: 04/09/26	Archive Date: 04/09/26

DOCKET NO. 260306-635411
DATE: April 9, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for asbestosis with bilateral calcified pleural plaques, mild interstitial scarring of lingula is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's service-connected asbestosis was not manifested by a forced vital capacity (FVC) of 80 percent or worse, nor a DLCO (SB) of 80 percent or worse. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for establishing entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for the Veteran's service-connected asbestosis have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.7, 4.31, 4.96, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6833. 

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from January 1964 to December 1967, including service in the Republic of Vietnam.  The Board recognizes the Veteran's service to our country, and the sacrifices it necessarily entailed.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 2025 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  

In the March 2026 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the June 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.301.  Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. 

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran 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 Veteran's asbestosis is currently rated under Diagnostic Code 6833.

Under Diagnostic Code 6833, asbestosis is to be rated under the General Rating Formula for Interstitial Lung Disease (General Rating Formula).  A 100 percent evaluation is assigned for FVC less than 50 percent of predicted value, or; DLCO (SB) less than 40-percent predicted, or; maximum exercise capacity less than 15 ml/kg/min oxygen consumption with cardiorespiratory limitation, or; cor pulmonale (right heart failure) or pulmonary hypertension, or; requires outpatient oxygen therapy.  A 60 percent evaluation is assigned for FVC of 50- to 64-percent predicted, or; DLCO (SB) of 40- to 55-percent predicted, or; maximum exercise capacity of 15 to 20 ml/kg/min oxygen consumption with cardiorespiratory limitation.  A 30 percent evaluation is assigned for FVC of 65- to 74-percent predicted, or; DLCO (SB) of 56- to 65- percent predicted.  A 10 percent evaluation is assigned for FVC of 75- to 80-percent predicted value, or; DLCO (SB) of 66- to 80-percent predicted.

When evaluating based on pulmonary function tests, post-bronchodilator results are to be used unless the post-bronchodilator results were poorer than the pre-bronchodilator results, in which case, the pre-bronchodilator results are used for rating purposes.  38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d)(5).  When there is a disparity between the results of different PFTs, so that the level of evaluation would differ depending on which test result is used, the test result that the examiner states most accurately reflect the level of disability is utilized.  38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d)(6).

In every instance where the schedule does not provide a 0 percent rating for a diagnostic code, a 0 percent rating will be assigned when the requirements for a compensable rating are not met.  38 C.F.R. § 4.31
 in which case, the pre-bronchodilator results are used for rating purposes.  38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d)(5).  When there is a disparity between the results of different PFTs, so that the level of evaluation would differ depending on which test result is used, the test result that the examiner states most accurately reflect the level of disability is utilized.  38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d)(6).

In every instance where the schedule does not provide a 0 percent rating for a diagnostic code, a 0 percent rating will be assigned when the requirements for a compensable rating are not met.  38 C.F.R. § 4.31.

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a compensable disability rating for his service-connected asbestosis disability.  For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to a higher disability rating during this period on appeal, and the claim for an increase is therefore denied.

The Veteran originally underwent a VA examination in September 2022.  The Veteran reported his shortness of breath had worsened, he was more fatigued, and he had a non-productive cough.  The Veteran's pulmonary function test results recorded the following: his pre-bronchodilator FVC was 82% predicted; his post-bronchodilator FVC was 69% predicted; and no DLCO results were provided.  See C&P Exam, September 2022.  While the Veteran's post-bronchodilator test result was 69%, when post-bronchodilator results are poorer than the pre-bronchodilator results, the pre-bronchodilator results are used for rating purposes.  38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d)(5). 

Next, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in May 2023 where he continued to report gradual worsening fatigue, shortness of breath, dry cough, and requiring more sleep.  The Veteran's pulmonary function test results recorded the following: his pre-bronchodilator FVC was 107% predicted; his post-bronchodilator FVC was 108% predicted; and no DLCO results were provided.  The examiner noted that the Veteran's FEV-1/FVC test results most accurately reflected his level of disability.  See C&P Exam, May 2023.  However, as noted above, the rating criteria for the Veteran's asbestosis does not provide a rating based on FEV-1/FVC scores.

Finally, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in June 2025 where he reported progressive dyspnea.  The Veteran's pulmonary function test results recorded the following: his pre-bronchodilator FVC was 105% predicted; his post-bronchodilator FVC was 99% predicted; and no DLCO results were provided. While the Veteran's post-bronchodilator test result were 99%, when post-bronchodilator results are poorer than the pre-bronchodilator results, the pre-bronchodilator results are used for rating purposes.  38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d)(5).  The examiner noted that the Veteran's FEV-1 test results most accurately reflected his level of disability.  See C&P Exam, June 2024.  However, as noted above, the rating criteria for the Veteran's asbestosis does not provide a rating based on FEV-1 scores.

The Board has carefully considered the evidence of record.  The Board notes that the VA examiners are medical professionals, competent to measure and opine as to the severity of the Veteran's asbestosis disability.  There is no evidence that the examiners are not credible.  Moreover, the examiners provided an analysis based upon both subjective and objective information to form an opinion based upon medical expertise.  

Further, the Board has considered the lay statements of the Veteran and finds the lay statements are competent insofar as they report observable symptoms, such as shortness of breath and dry coughing.  However, to the extent the Veteran asserts that his current disability entitles him to a higher disability rating, such statements are less probative than the objective medical evidence of record.  See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506(1995).  Indeed, with regard to the actual degree of the Veteran's impairment, the objective findings contained in the VA examination reports and the pulmonary function testing of record are more probative because they are based on actual pulmonary function testing.  This medical evidence weighs persuasively against a finding that the Veteran's asbestosis warrants a higher compensable rating during this period on appeal
 they report observable symptoms, such as shortness of breath and dry coughing.  However, to the extent the Veteran asserts that his current disability entitles him to a higher disability rating, such statements are less probative than the objective medical evidence of record.  See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506(1995).  Indeed, with regard to the actual degree of the Veteran's impairment, the objective findings contained in the VA examination reports and the pulmonary function testing of record are more probative because they are based on actual pulmonary function testing.  This medical evidence weighs persuasively against a finding that the Veteran's asbestosis warrants a higher compensable rating during this period on appeal.  

(Continued on the next page)

?

For the above reasons, the evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to whether a compensable disability rating is warranted for the Veteran's claim.

 

 

Frederic P. Gallun

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	M.H., Counsel

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.