Let me read the skill for handling uploaded files first, then look at what you’ve got.Now I have a good picture of the full record. Let me do one final targeted search for the key chest X-ray with the scarring finding and its date.Now I have everything I need. Let me put it all together for you.<\/p>\n
The chest X-ray with the lung scarring findings was from March 4, 2010<\/strong> \u2014 that’s the one that mentioned “minimal scarring or coarsening of lung markings” and “low normal inspiratory volume.” The reason for the scan was a persistent hacky cough for 10 years<\/strong>, meaning that cough started around 2000. The 2020 chest X-ray you uploaded came back completely normal by comparison.<\/p>\n Here’s what the records actually show and why your claim situation is complicated:<\/p>\n What your records document:<\/strong><\/p>\n Your 2010 chest X-ray showed “minimal scarring or coarsening of lung markings” and “low normal inspiratory volume.” That’s a real finding. By 2020 the chest X-ray reads as essentially clear with “no focal consolidation, congestion or mass.” Your VA record at page 289 and 306 explicitly documents that you reported AFFF and asbestos<\/strong> as toxic exposure concerns during your PACT Act screening in October 2023, and it was flagged for follow-up. So the VA has your own self-reported asbestos exposure on record.<\/p>\n The problem with how the VA denied you:<\/strong><\/p>\n The VA’s standard denial reason for asbestos claims is that asbestos exposure is not a “presumptive” condition under the PACT Act the way burn pit exposure is. For asbestos, the VA requires you to prove three things: that you were exposed during service, that you currently have a diagnosable condition, and a medical nexus opinion connecting the two. What they’re saying when they claim they “can’t prove where you got it” is that they’re requiring the third piece \u2014 a doctor’s written opinion specifically connecting your restricted lung disease to your shipyard service.<\/p>\n What’s notably missing from your records:<\/strong><\/p>\n There is no pulmonary function test (spirometry) documented anywhere in this Blue Button report. That’s a significant gap. A formal restrictive lung disease diagnosis should be supported by spirometry showing reduced FVC with normal FEV1\/FVC ratio. Without that in your VA record, the diagnosis may be soft. There’s also no CT scan of your chest, no pulmonologist consult note, and no C&P exam note visible in this record \u2014 though the C&P exam results may have gone to the claims side rather than the medical record side.<\/p>\n Your strongest argument:<\/strong><\/p>\n Navy shipyard overhaul is extremely well documented historically as a high asbestos exposure environment. Ships built before the mid-1970s were packed with asbestos insulation \u2014 pipe lagging, boiler insulation, gaskets, deck tiles. When a ship went into dry dock for overhaul, workers disturbed all of it. The VA actually acknowledges this in their own training materials. The problem is the VA treats it as “possible” rather than “presumptive,” so they make you prove it individually rather than granting it automatically.<\/p>\n What I’d suggest:<\/strong><\/p>\n The most important next step is getting a private nexus letter<\/strong> from a doctor \u2014 ideally a pulmonologist \u2014 who will review your records and write an opinion stating that your restricted lung disease is “at least as likely as not” caused by your Navy shipyard asbestos exposure. That phrase, “at least as likely as not,” is the legal standard. You don’t have to prove it beyond a doubt, just that it’s 50\/50 or better. The VA’s own examiner apparently didn’t write that, which is why you were denied.<\/p>\n A VSO \u2014 your record shows the Kerrville VSO number is 210-617-5175 \u2014 can help you file a supplemental claim with that nexus letter attached. That’s the cleanest path to reversal without going all the way to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.<\/p>\n One more thing worth noting from your record: your O2 sat was 95% at your October 2024 visit. That’s on the lower end of normal, and for a 66-year-old with documented lung scarring it’s worth flagging to your doctor as a baseline measurement to track.<\/p>\n I’m not a doctor and this isn’t medical or legal advice \u2014 but that’s what your own records show, and I wanted you to be able to see it clearly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Let me read the skill for handling uploaded files first, then look at what you’ve got.Now I have a good picture of the full record. Let me do one final targeted search for the key chest X-ray with the scarring finding and its date.Now I have everything I need. Let me put it all together … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-368","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-veterans"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t