BVA9505433 DOCKET NO. 90-21 731 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a foot injury. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. H.. Mathis, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1951 to July 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Seattle, Washington. The case was remanded to the RO for further action in December 1990, and March 1993. By rating decision in May 1994, the RO granted service connection for hepatitis, which had been an issue before the Board in 1990 and 1993. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that a grant of service connection is warranted for foot disability sustained in service. 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 veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a foot injury is not well grounded. FINDING OF FACT The claim for service connection for service connection for residuals of a foot injury is not plausible. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a foot injury is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Initially, one who submits a claim for benefits under a law administered by VA has the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well-grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). Only when that initial burden has been met does the duty of the Secretary to assist such a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim attach. Id. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has further defined a well-grounded claim as a "plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation." Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). It has also held that where a determinative issue involves a medical diagnosis or medical causation, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible is required. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). The applicable law and regulations provide that service connection may be established for disability resulting from injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1994). The service medical records reflect that the veteran dropped a 50 pound drum on his left foot over the metatarsal area, and that the foot was swollen and numb when he was seen in April 1952. A physical examination during hospitalization was negative except for swelling, tenderness, and abrasions over the first, second, and third left metatarsals. The foot was treated with an Ace bandage and whirlpool, daily. Within a week of the injury, the veteran was discharged to duty as being fit for same. There were no other foot complaints reported during service, and the feet were normal on the veteran's retirement examination in February 1972. There was no report of foot symptoms for many years after service. When the veteran had a special examination of the feet by the VA in March 1994, the history was recorded that he had dropped a heavy weight on his foot during service; that he was hospitalized for a week; and that there was no fracture. The veteran noted that he had been in a walking cast for three weeks thereafter and then was returned to duty. In 1994, the examiner noted that there was a reference to a right foot injury in a VA examination report of 1993. X-rays of the right foot by the VA in 1993 were normal. When the veteran was questioned, during the examination in 1994, about which foot was injured in service , he stated that it was his left foot that had been injured, a report consistent with the information in the service medical records. The examiner further noted that in order to provide definitive information on the matter, both feet were examined. No swelling was noted. Foot pulses were normal. There was no deformity or functional impairment of the feet or toes. There was slight tenderness to palpation between the first and second metatarsal bones. The diagnosis was contusion left foot, no fracture in 1951 (sic), with examination unremarkable. Also, X-rays showed no sign of old fracture in the bones of the feet. It is clear that the veteran sustained left foot trauma during service in 1952, but there was no evidence of fracture then, or of residual disability after a week. The veteran continued in service for more than twenty years thereafter with no recorded pertinent symptoms. The feet were normal on the separation examination. There were no recorded foot complaints for many years thereafter, and VA examination of the feet was termed unremarkable in 1994. It is the judgment of the Board that there is no medical evidence reflecting that the veteran has chronic foot disability which would support a grant of service connection under applicable VA law and regulations. In light of these circumstances, the Board must conclude that the veteran has failed to meet his initial burden of producing evidence of a well-grounded claim. The Board recognizes that the veteran has argued that he sustained a foot injury during service which caused disability warranting a grant of service connection. Although he has expressed the opinion that such a relationship exists, he is not qualified, as a lay person, to furnish medical opinions or diagnoses. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494-95 (1992). Here, the medical evidence clearly reflects that no chronic foot disability residuals exist as the result of the foot injury during service in 1952. ORDER As the claim for entitlement to service connection for residuals of a foot injury is not well-grounded, the appeal is dismissed. ROBERT E. SULLIVAN 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.