Caring. Effective. Efficient.

Proving asbestos exposure in military service in a DIC appeal.

Proving asbestos exposure in military service in a DIC appeal.

This case involves the failure of the Board of Veterans Appeals to address all evidence related to the Veteran’s possible exposure to asbestos in military service when it denied service connection for the cause of the veteran’s death. 

Our client appealed the BVA’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).

The appeal was resolved through a joint motion for remand: the government attorney agreed with Alexandra Curran’s arguments that the Board failed to address all relevant evidence of in-service asbestos exposure.

ISSUE ON APPEAL TO THE CAVC:

This appeal involved the BVA's failure to address all relevant evidence as it related to the veteran’s cause of death. 

Based on an alleged lack of evidence and the veteran’s military occupational specialty, the Board determined that the veteran did not establish in-service exposure to asbestos in his VA claim.

As a result, the BVA denied service connection of the cause of the veteran's death, preventing his surviving spouse from receiving disability compensation in the form of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). DIC and accrued benefits are two of the most common benefits sought by a veteran's surviving spouse, but they are certainly not the only such benefits.

Service connection for cause of death may be granted if a service-connected condition was either the principal or contributory cause of the veteran's death. 

A principal cause of death means that the service-connected condition was the immediate or underlying cause of the death. A contributory cause of death means that the condition contributed materially or substantially to the death or aided in the death.

The veteran’s death was caused by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lung cancer and brain cancer. His surviving spouse sought service connection for the cause of his death due to in-service asbestos exposure. 

While most cases involving asbestos exposure in military service involve navy veterans, veterans from other branches of the military were exposed to asbestos.

The Board held that the veteran was not exposed to asbestos in military service, explaining that the veteran’s wife did not have personal knowledge of the exposure and relying on his military occupational specialty of truck driver.

However, the Board failed to address three pieces of important evidence: 1) his wife’s statement that her husband talked about performing repair work on the trucks he drove while in the military; 2) the Veteran’s DD 214 that listed auto mechanic training; and 3) an article explaining reasons for high risk of asbestos exposure in the automotive industry.

Ms. Curran argued that the BVA erred in failing to address this evidence regarding possible exposure to asbestos.   

RESOLUTION AT THE CAVC:

The Secretary agreed that the Board of Veterans Appeals erred when it provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases to support its determination that the veteran was not exposed to asbestos in military service, since the BVA did not address all the evidence of record related to his possible in-service exposure.

The parties identified at least 3 pieces of evidence that related to the veteran's possible exposure to asbestos in military service, and (among other things) directed the BVA to address that evidence on remand.

The Veteran and the VA’s Office of General Counsel filed a joint motion to vacate and remand the appeal back to the Board to fix its errors.

If the BVA decision in this case sounds like yours, or if you have a BVA decision that involves clear and unmistakeable error, reach out to the law firm of Attig | Steel.

Click here to submit your BVA decision and one of our attorneys will see if there is anything we can do to help.

Link to the BVA Decision on CAVC Website.

Link to the Joint Motion to Remand the CAVC Website.

Case Details

OGC Attorney: Sarah Catherine Blackadar (link to attorney bio on LinkedIn)

Veteran Representation at CAVC: Alexandra Curran (link to bio)

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge: K. Parakkal

Vet's Rep at BVA: pro-se

Date of BVA Decision: June 21, 2018

Date of CAVC Judgment on Remand: May 10, 2019

Taking Point! Blog

Oct
26
If you are an agent, VSO, or attorney, you have a tough decision under AMA when the BVA issues a denial of your client’s benefits. On one hand, you can file a supplemental claim. On the other, you can file an appeal to the US Court of Ap… Read More
Jun
3
I really can’t take it anymore. I’m sure many like you feel the same way. Every time another child with a military weapon ambushes a school full of children, I am overwhelmed with emotions that have no outlet. I can’t even process… Read More
May
27
  While on our way to the nutcracker audition at the local theatre I asked my 9-year-old daughter how her day went at school. “It was okay.  We had another active shooter drill.  When the drill started, I had to run behind and under my teacher… Read More
May
23
After years of exploring different fields, I’ve found purpose-driven work here, at Attig | Curran | Steel.   There are a lot of variables in the experience of “happy.” It is difficult to keep it continuous.  Do I feel happy when my kids… Read More

Read the "Taking Point!" Blog

Recent Cases

This case involves the BVA judge’s inadequate reasoning of a denial of a veteran’s claim for an increased rating for PTSD.   The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand. ISSUE ON APPEAL TO THE CAVC (BVA overlooked evidence… Read More
This case involves the BVA judge’s inadequate reasoning of his denial of a veteran’s past-due benefits in a claim for an increased rating due to an increase in the severity of the veteran’s PTSD. The appeal was resolved through a jo… Read More
This case involves the BVA’s failure to comply with a Veterans Court Order in a January 2020 Memorandum Decision. The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand. ISSUE ON APPEAL TO THE CAVC (BVA fails to comply with Veterans Court Ord… Read More

See More Appellate Results