16-35 186, 16-35 186

Veteran served in the U.S. Navy (Jan 1962–May 1965) as an Aviation Boatswain's Mate/Aircraft Handler; in‑service asbestos exposure has been conceded.
Veteran diagnosed with carcinoma in situ with severe vocal cord dysplasia (throat/laryngeal cancer); he and his wife acknowledge long-term tobacco use.
Initial RO rating decision (April 2013) did not grant service connection; appeal certified to the Board on August 9, 2016.
After certification, VA physician Dr. J.N.B. submitted a September 12, 2016 nexus opinion attributing the cancer primarily to tobacco but acknowledging uncertainty regarding an asbestos link; he cited medical literature suggesting a possible association.
Because new evidence was submitted after the June 2016 SOC and after certification, the Board found the RO must issue a SSOC and perform further development.
The Board REMANDED the claim, directing the AOJ to obtain an addendum opinion (from Dr. J.N.B. or another examiner), address the cited literature, discuss latency, consider the conceded in‑service asbestos exposure, and then issue a SSOC and re-adjudicate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Service connection for throat (laryngeal) cancer as due to in‑service asbestos exposure	Asbestos exposure aboard USS Shangri‑La caused or contributed to Veteran's throat cancer	RO/VA found tobacco the more likely cause; prior studies not definitive for asbestos–laryngeal cancer link	Remanded: obtain detailed addendum opinion addressing whether, to at least 50% probability, cancer is related to service asbestos exposure; consider literature and latency; then SSOC and re‑adjudicate
Whether new evidence submitted after certification requires additional AOJ action (SSOC and development)	Veteran/rep relied on post‑certification VA nexus opinion and literature; claimant expects RO consideration	Implicit: AOJ previously considered claim up to SOC, but post‑certification evidence mandates further review	Held: Board requires AOJ to issue SSOC addressing newly submitted evidence and to complete directed development before returning to Board

Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999) (claimant retains right to submit additional evidence and argument during remand; VA must allow submission and consider new evidence)