BVA9505981 DOCKET NO. 93-10 567 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. H. Mathis, Counsel REMAND The veteran had in excess of 26 years and 6 months active service between December 1944 and his retirement in June 1971. The veteran's widow is the appellant in this matter that comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 1992 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. The appellant contends that service connection is warranted for the cause of the veteran's death on the basis that exposure to asbestos during service caused the lung cancer from which he died. The Board is interested in obtaining the veteran's complete administrative records, which are not included with the claims file, because they contain pertinent information regarding his specific duties during service. In the substantive appeal of March 1993, the appellant noted that a report from the Montgomery VA Medical Center from June through August 1992 shows asbestos type cells which are the direct cause of the veteran's lung cancer development. A review of the claims folder does not reflect that this documentation is of record. Also, the death certificate reflects that the veteran died at Humana East Hospital in September 1992. No records from that facility are in the claims folder. Further, the death certificate does not reflect whether an autopsy was performed or not. If an autopsy was performed, the findings would be important based on the claim presented. Further, service connection was established for bronchitis, rated noncompensably disabling, during the veteran's lifetime. It is the judgment of the Board that a VA pulmonary specialist should review the claims file and provide an opinion regarding the existence of asbestos related lung disability and the etiology of the fatal lung cancer. In light of the above, the Board concludes that there should be additional action by the RO prior to a decision on the merits of the claim. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should obtain the veteran's complete administrative records from the service department for association with the primary claims folder. 2. The RO should request that the service department complete a special search for additional service medical records, especially any original chest X-rays which may be available. 3. The RO should contact the appellant and request that she identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who treated the veteran for lung disability since service. She should also be requested to provide information concerning whether an autopsy was performed following the veteran's death. With any necessary authorization from the appellant, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of pertinent treatment records identified by the appellant, which have not been previously secured, including the terminal hospital records from Humana East Hospital, and associate them with the claims folder. In any event, all VA treatment records, especially any pertaining to the veteran's reported hospitalization at Montgomery VA Medical Center from June through August 1992 should be obtained. 4. Thereafter, the RO should arrange for review of the complete claims folder by a VA board certified pulmonary specialist, if available, to determine whether asbestos related pulmonary disease is shown. The rationale for any opinion expressed should be fully explained. The examiner is also requested to provide an opinion with complete rationale, as to whether it is as least as likely as not that the fatal lung cancer can be associated with the service- connected bronchitis. 5. Then, in light of the evidence obtained pursuant to the requested development, the RO should readjudicate the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the appellant's satisfaction, the RO should issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case and the appellant and her representative should be provided an opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion, either legal or factual, as to any ultimate outcome warranted. No action is required of the appellant until she is notified by the RO. _____________________________ ROBERT E. SULLIVAN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 State. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1993).