Citation Nr: 0004639 Decision Date: 02/23/00 Archive Date: 02/28/00 DOCKET NO. 94-48 817 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a bladder condition. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD H. Roberts, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June 1972 to August 1975. This appeal arises before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 1994 rating decision of the New Orleans, Louisiana, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied entitlement to service connection for a bladder condition. This issue was addressed in a September 1996 Board remand that found that the veteran had not perfected an appeal of the issue. However, as the veteran had been incorrectly notified of the requirements to perfect an appeal on that issue, the issue was remanded so that the veteran could be informed of the appropriate requirements to perfect an appeal. On remand, the veteran was so informed and perfected his appeal on this issue. The Board notes that the veteran's representative has also briefed the issue of entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for hemorrhoids. However, the Board notes that while the veteran did perfect an appeal of an October 1992 rating decision that continued a noncompensable rating for hemorrhoids, that issue was adjudicated by the Board in the September 1996 decision. Therefore, that appeal has been adjudicated and is no longer before the Board. The September 1996 Board remand also addressed the issues of entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability by reason of service-connected disabilities; entitlement to a 10 percent rating based on multiple, noncompensable service-connected disabilities; and entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the cervical spine. At the time of the September 1996 Board remand, the veteran had not perfected an appeal on those issues. However, due to an incorrect notification of appeal rights, the Board requested that the veteran be provided a correct statement of his appeal rights and the method to perfect his appeal on those issues. The RO notified the veteran of the need to perfect an appeal on those issues and afforded him an opportunity to perfect an appeal upon those issues. However, no timely substantive appeal was received with regard to those issues. Therefore, the Board finds that those issues are not before the Board as no appeal has been perfected. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There is no competent evidence that shows that the veteran complained of or was treated for any bladder condition while on active duty. 2. There is no competent evidence that shows that the veteran currently has any bladder disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a bladder condition is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (1999). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The law provides that "a person who submits a claim for benefits under a law administered by the Secretary shall have 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) (West 1991). In order to establish a "well grounded" claim for service connection for a particular disability, the veteran needs to provide evidence relevant to the requirements for service connection and of sufficient weight to make the claim plausible or meritorious on its own and capable of substantiation. Franko v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 502, 505 (1993); Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609, 610-611 (1992); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 81 (1990). The three elements of a "well grounded" claim are: (1) evidence of a current disability as provided by medical diagnosis; (2) evidence of incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service as provided by either lay or medical evidence, as the situation dictates; and, (3) a nexus, or link, between the inservice disease or injury and the current disability as provided by competent medical evidence. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995); see also 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1999). Where a claim involves issues of medical fact, such as medical causation or medical diagnoses, competent medical evidence is required. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91, 92-93 (1993). In this case, the determinative issues presented by the claim are (1) whether the veteran had a bladder condition during service; (2) whether he currently has any bladder condition; and if so, (3) whether any bladder condition is etiologically related to his service or is proximately due to or the result of any disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. The Board concludes that medical evidence is needed to lend plausible support for the issues presented by this case because they involve questions of medical fact requiring medical knowledge or training for their resolution. Caluza, supra; see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494-95 (1992). Service connection may be established for a current disability which has not been clearly shown in service where there is a current disability and a relationship or connection between that disability and a disease contracted or an injury sustained during service is shown. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1999); Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 548 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992). A review of the veteran's service medical records fails to reveal any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of any bladder condition while on active duty. The Board notes that the veteran's May 1975 separation examination found his genito- urinary system to be normal. A subsequent August 1975 separation examination also found the veteran's genito- urinary system to be normal. The veteran has alleged that he was treated for a bladder condition while in service at a United States Navy hospital in Pensacola, Florida, and at Community Hospital Naval Air Station, Whiting Field, Milton, Florida. However, an exhaustive search was conducted for any record of the veteran's treatment in service or at those facilities for a bladder condition, and no such record was found. An October 1992 VA medical report notes a history of microhematuria, but found no urinary tract infection. As there is no current diagnosis of any bladder condition which is a disability, and no record of treatment or complaint of any bladder condition in service, the veteran's claim fails to show the required elements of a well-grounded claim. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995). The Board has thoroughly reviewed the claims file, but finds no evidence of a plausible claim. Since the veteran has not met his burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded, it must be denied. Where a veteran has not met the burden of presenting evidence of a well-grounded claim, VA has no duty to assist him any further in developing facts pertinent to his claim, including any further duty to provide him with a medical examination. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (1998); Rabideau, 2 Vet. App. at 144 (where the claim was not well grounded, VA was under no duty to provide the veteran with an examination). In fact, the Board is prohibited from conducting development in a claim which is not well grounded. Morton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 477 (1999). However, where a claim is not well grounded, it is incomplete, and depending on the particular facts of the case, VA may be obligated under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) to advise the claimant of the evidence needed to complete his application, where the veteran has reported other known or existing evidence. Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 77 (1995); Epps v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 341 (1996). In this case, regardless of whether the obligation attached, VA has complied with this obligation in the October 1995 supplemental statement of the case, the March 1999 supplemental statement of the case, and in the above discussion. Although the RO did not specifically state that it denied the veteran's claim on the basis that it was not well grounded, the Board concludes that this was not prejudicial to the veteran. See Edenfield v. Brown, 8 Vet. App 384 (1995) (en banc) (where a Board decision disallows a claim on the merits and the Court finds the claim to be not well grounded, the appropriate remedy is to affirm the Board's decision on the basis of nonprejudicial error). See also Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993). ORDER Because it is not well grounded, the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a bladder condition is denied. M. S. SIEGEL Acting Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals