[Jim Wood]

I’m glad I saw your inquiry. I too, suffer from asbestosis as a result from active duty exposure Navy 1968. In perusing a VA claim, the VA uses a loophole “if no notations of asbestos or treatment for exposure” are in your medical records, then your claim will be denied. Please get in touch with me for more information.
Regards
Jim Wood

I researched and discovered there is in fact a procedure to adjudicate asbestos claims. I drafted a scathing letter and decided enough was enough and sent it to the Inspector General in Washington D.C. Here is that letter dated May 18, 2015
*******************************************
I hate to be knocking on your door, but my VA terminal claim has reached a new level of utter incompetence.

My suspicions of incompetence were confirmed by a congressional inquiry. The VA reported my VA claim status. I remain denied based on lack of evidence in my personnel service records, which contain nothing about exposure nor treatment for asbestos exposure. This is normal, and is well known, simply because it takes 45 or more years for asbestos exposure to manifest into a documental event such as asbestosis and lung cancer. Both of which I have contracted.

The VA employs this lack of service record documentation to routinely deny asbestosis claims. Secondly, the VA incorporates a 2002 chart, Military Occupation Specialty (MOS) Probability of Exposure to further determine service connection.
Fact: I had no MOS, just out of boot camp. I forego attending a formal military school by requesting brother duty. My first assignment was with my brother, on the USS Kilauea, undergoing new ship construction, Boston Naval shipyard, as a Seaman Apprentice. I worked on deck force, was the lowest man on the pecking pole (given all the nasty jobs), and helped the yard workers in moving their tools, equipment, and materials some of which contained asbestos. When we had the watch, my job was fire watch, to standby in the same compartment with a fire extinguisher during hot work and while asbestos was being applied to pipes and fittings. Little did I know how toxic the dust and fumes were. We were not given any safety instructions or equipment. It was common to work in areas before the ships ventilation or lights were even working (see lawsuit excerpts attached earlier). I did this for ten months in the shipyard before transferring to Radio 1 1/2 years into my enlistment, where I qualified for a MOS rating of minimal.

So, with nothing in my personnel service records about treatment for/or asbestos exposure and a Seaman Apprentice MOS rating of N/A, the VA concluded no evidence. Thus “no evidence”, became “the evidence” used to deny my asbestosis service connection.
Quote:
“We received your statement claiming exposure to asbestos during your duties aboard the USS Kilauea, but there is no evidence shown in your personnel records showing that your duties exposed you to asbestos. However, the evidence continues to show this condition was not incurred in or aggravated by military service”.

This decision goes beyond incompetence, is absolutely ludicrous, and smacks of criminal negligence. I have overwhelming indisputable evidence proving the contrary.
It even gets better. There is a third method the VA can employ to adjudicate asbestosis claims, but its use is shunned because (1) they don’t have to go beyond looking in personnel service records knowing nothing will be found and (2) a MOS rating has little effect in establishing a service connection decision, and in fact can actually count against the veteran if the MOS rating is minimal.

Here is a direct cut and paste of the VA’s M21-1MR, IV, Subpart ii, chapter 1 section H, page 29:

29. Developing Claims for Service Connection for Asbestos-Related Diseases

Introduction
This topic contains information on developing claims for service connection for asbestos-related diseases, including considering the latent period and type of asbestos exposure the responsibilities of the rating activity.
a. Considering the Latent Period and Type of Asbestos Exposure
Many people with asbestos-related diseases have only recently come to medical attention because the latent period varies from 10 to 45 or more years between the first exposure and development of a disease.
Note: The exposure may have been direct or indirect; the extent and duration of exposure is not a factor.

b. Responsibilities of the Rating Activity (Rater)
The rating activity is responsible for determining whether or not the evidence of record confirms the Veteran was exposed to asbestos during service, and ensuring that development is accomplished to determine whether the Veteran was exposed to asbestos (as a result of his/her occupation, for example) before or after service.

************************************
I then challenged (b) in the following statement:
A service connection decision should not and cannot be derived from non-existent service record remarks, due to the fact that it takes 45 or more years to develop into a documental medical event as noted in MR21’s introduction.
Current medical records must be allowed and employed as evidence. Including but not limited to; pathology diagnosis, CT scans, medical DBQ’s, and personal declarations as current supportive evidence of record.
To be fair, the Decision Review Officer needs to base a decision using current evidence of record as directed in M21-1MR (b).
Then and only then, adjudicate an asbestosis service connection using evidence from #1 and #2.

I need your assistance and case overview, in requesting the Seattle VA Senior DRO to review and make a service connection decision using my current evidence of record as per M21-1MR.
************************************************************************

Because of my deteriorating health (Terminal), I was given a federal case number and “Hand delivered” to Allison Hickey, the undersecretary of benefits. Within an hour, her team called the Seattle VA director demanding my case be reopened, that ALL my evidence be reviewed (not just looking in my service file for none existent records), and then render a decision. It took 48 hours for Seattle to review my evidence. In the meantime, I was hoping for 40% – 60% disability. When the smoke cleared, every contention was awarded and my disabilities totaled 210%. They only pay to 100% but I was awarded a Special Monthly compensation (SMC S1) for in home oxygen therapy.

[Jim Wood]

Ramping up Esbriet is important.  Three times per day. First week is 1 per dose, Second week is 2 per dose, then Third week 3 per dose. If you start at full dose (3 per dose) then you run the risk of side effects like diarrhea and I would strongly suggest NOT wearing a tight fitting belt whose buckle requires a Herculean effort to release.

I have been on Esbriet for 3 months and latest Pulmonary function tests show a stabilization of ILD progression. Hopefully this  will buy time for getting a transplant green light. 4 years ago I had lung cancer and need to pass 5 years to be considered.