BVA9502438 
DOCKET NO.  93-05 957     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Hartford,
Connecticut

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for asbestos-related
pleural disease.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Patrick J. Costello, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active military service from July 1958 to May
1962.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter the Board) on appeal from a March 1992 rating
decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional
Office (RO), in Hartford, Connecticut.  This decision granted the
veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for a lung
condition secondary to asbestos exposure.  The veteran however
appeals the assignment of a noncompensable evaluation for this
disability.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL

The veteran avers that the RO erred when it failed to assign a
compensable disability rating for his asbestos-related pleural
disease.  He states that he suffers from shortness of breath and
experiences pain in his side.  He further contends that his
exposure to asbestos has decreased his lung capacity, thus
restricting the type of activities he may pursue.

DECISION OF THE BOARD

The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the
evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file.
Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and
for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the
Board that the preponderance of the evidence is against a
compensable evaluation for pleural disease secondary to exposure
to asbestos.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.  All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition
of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the agency of
original jurisdiction.

2.  The veteran has slight dyspnea on exertion after cutting the
grass or walking approximately one mile; pulmonary function tests
are within normal limits, and the lung function is entirely
normal.

3.  Neither an exceptional nor unusual disability picture has
been presented so as to render impractical the application of the
regular schedular standards.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for compensable evaluation for pleural disease
secondary to exposure to asbestos have not been met.  38 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1155, 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1), 4.1, 4.2,
4.7, 4.10, Part 4, Diagnostic Code 6802 (1994).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

In accordance with 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991), and Murphy v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990), the appellant has presented a
well-grounded claim.  The facts relevant to this appeal have been
properly developed and the obligation of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) to assist the veteran in the development of
his claim has been satisfied.  Id.

Disability evaluations are based upon the average impairment of
earning capacity as determined by a schedule for rating
disabilities.  38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. Part 4
(1994).  Separate rating codes identify the various disabilities.
38 C.F.R. Part 4 (1994).  In determining the current level of
impairment, the disability must be considered in the context of
the whole recorded history, including service medical records.
38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2, 4.41 (1994).  An evaluation of the level of
disability present also includes consideration of the functional
impairment of the veteran's ability to engage in ordinary
activities, including employment, and the effect of pain on the
functional abilities.  38 C.F.R. §§ 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, and 4.59
(1994).

While in service, the veteran was exposed to asbestos as a result
of his service in the U.S. Navy.  In 1985, he started to develop
pain and restriction in his chest for which he sought medical
treatment.  Upon undergoing radiological and pulmonary function
tests, he was diagnosed as suffering from pleural disease.  He
continued to be seen by private physicians and in 1991 he applied
for VA compensation benefits.  The private medical results were
forwarded to the RO, and the veteran underwent a VA Compensation
and Pension Examination in January 1992.  In March 1992, the RO
granted service connection for this disability and assigned a
noncompensable disability evaluation.  VA Form 21-6796, Rating
Decision, March 16, 1992.  Upon receiving notification of the
rating evaluation, the veteran appealed the decision claiming
that his disability was more disabling than currently rated.

The veteran's disability is evaluated as unspecified
pneumoconiosis under 38 C.F.R. Part 4, Diagnostic Code 6802
(1994).  The schedular rating table for this condition is as
follows:

Pronounced; with extent of lesions
comparable to far advanced pulmonary
tuberculosis or pulmonary function tests
confirming a markedly severe degree of
ventilatory deficit; with dyspnea at rest
and other evidence of severe impairment of
bodily vigor producing total incapacity.
                          100 percent disability
evaluation.

Severe; extensive fibrosis, severe dyspnea
on slight exertion with corresponding
ventilatory deficit confirmed by pulmonary
function tests with marked impairment of
health.
                          60 percent disability
evaluation.

Moderate; with considerable pulmonary
fibrosis and moderate dyspnea on slight
exertion, confirmed by pulmonary function
tests.
                          30 percent disability
evaluation.

Definitely symptomatic with pulmonary
fibrosis and moderate dyspnea on extended
exertion.
                          10 percent disability
evaluation.

Since filing his notice of disagreement, the veteran has
undergone additional pulmonary function tests.  The results of
those tests, and also those conducted in 1988 and 1990 are listed
below.

PFT
1/6/88
PFT
10/26/90
PFT
1/13/92
PFT
8/21/92

FVC

75% of
predicted
(Class 2 -
Mild
Impairment)
92% of
predicted
(Class 1 -
No
Impairment)
90% of
predicted
(Class 1 -
No
Impairment)
92% of
predicted
(Class 1 -
No
Impairment)

FEV1

87% of
predicted
(Class 1 -
No
Impairment)
103% of
predicted
(Class 1 -
No
Impairment)
102% of
predicted
(Class 1 -
No
Impairment)
106% of
predicted
(Class 1 -
No
Impairment)

FEV1/FVC

116% of
predicted
(Class 1 -
No
Impairment)
89% of
predicted
(Class 1 -
No
Impairment)
90% of
predicted
(Class 1 -
No
Impairment)
114% of
predicted
(Class 1 -
No
Impairment)

These past four pulmonary function tests results reported that
the veteran is currently not suffering from any noticeable
impairment of the whole person.

Additionally, the veteran's most recent private physician's
report noted that the veteran was not suffering from any
particular symptom.  Letter from Dr. M. B. Russi, January 13,
1992.  That is, he has not reported a chronic cough or the
coughing up of bloody sputum.  Further, the physician recorded
that the veteran was not having arm pain, nausea, vomiting, or
prolonged shortness of breath.  No clubbing, cyanosis, or edema
of the extremities was shown.  The physician reported that the
lung function was entirely normal.

The VA Compensation and Pension Examination, conducted that same
month, found that the veteran's respiratory rate was unlabored.
VA Compensation and Pension Examination, January 21, 1992.  The
veteran did report however that he had limited exercise
tolerance.  While the physician noted that the veteran reported
previous rales, upon examination, his lungs were otherwise clear.
A chronic cough was not present.  The results from this
examination essentially mirrored the results obtained by the
veteran's private physicians, Dr. M. B. Russi, on January 13,
1992, Dr. S. N. Mohr, on January 10, 1991, and Dr. D.
Baillargeon, on January 18, 1988.

Evidence has not been presented which would indicate that the
veteran's disability is of such severity as to be classified as
mildly disabling.  While the veteran reports that the pleural
disease causes moderate dyspnea on exertion, there is no
symptomatic pulmonary fibrosis.  Thus, while the lungs do show
degenerative changes due to the veteran's exposure to asbestos,
causing the veteran to complain of occasional discomfort, the
objective findings do not support a compensable evaluation.
Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against the
claim for an increased evaluation for a pleural disease secondary
to exposure to asbestos.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991);
38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b), 4.1, 4.2, 4.10, Part 4, Diagnostic Code
6802 (1993).

Consideration has also been given to the potential application of
the extraschedular evaluation provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)
(1994).  The evidence does not present such an exceptional or
unusual disability picture as to render impractical the
application of the regular schedular standards.  Specifically,
there has not been a demonstration of marked interference with
employment or frequent periods of hospitalization so as to render
impractical the application of the regular schedular criteria.

ORDER

Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for pleural disease
secondary to asbestos exposure is denied.

          BETTINA S. CALLAWAY
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 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.

NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS:  Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West
1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less
than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is
appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within
120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision,
provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which
was before the Board was filed with the agency of original
jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988.  Veterans' Judicial
Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988).  The date which
appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of
mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is
your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals.