Citation Nr: 0005848 Decision Date: 03/03/00 Archive Date: 03/14/00 DOCKET NO. 98-15 581 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for a stomach disability. 3. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disability. 4. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for residuals of a right wrist injury. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Alberto H. Zapata, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from July 1972 to July 1975 and from January to February 1991. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 1997 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An unappealed decision of August 1984 denied reopening of the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a right wrist injury. 2. The evidence added to the record since the August 1984 decision is redundant or cumulative of evidence previously of record or is not so significant that it must be considered in order to fairly decide the merits of the claim. 3. In an unappealed rating decision dated in June 1994 the RO denied the veteran's claims for service connection for psychiatric disability, stomach disability and gastroesophageal reflux disability. 4. The evidence added to the record since the June 1994 rating decision is redundant or cumulative of evidence previously of record or is not so significant that it must be considered in order to fairly decide the merits of any of the claims. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for psychiatric disability. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (1999). 2. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for a stomach disability. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (1999). 3. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disability. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (1999). 4. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a right wrist injury. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (1999). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The veteran's claim for service connection for a right wrist laceration was originally denied by the RO in an October 1977 rating decision. In an unappealed August 1984 decision, the RO determined that the veteran that he had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claim. Service connection for psychiatric disability, stomach disability and gastroesophageal reflux disability was appealed in an unappealed rating decision of June 1994. These unappealed decisions are final. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West 1991). Generally, a claim which has been denied in a final rating decision may not thereafter be reopened and allowed. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(c). The exception to this rule is 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108, which provides that if new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim. New and material evidence means evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers which bears directly and substantially upon the specific matter under consideration, which is neither cumulative nor redundant, and which by itself or in connection with evidence previously assembled is so significant that it must be considered in order to fairly decide the merits of the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). New evidence will be presumed credible solely for the purpose of determining whether the claim has been reopened. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, at 513 (1992). The veteran's contends that his current right wrist disability is etiologically related to a laceration sustained during his first period of active duty. The evidence of record at the time of the August 1984 decision included service medical records which show that the veteran was treated in May 1973 for a right wrist injury; minimal swelling and limited range of motion were noted. On examination for discharge in June 1975, the veteran's musculoskeletal system, skin and neurologic status were found to be normal. Also included in the record in August 1984 was a September 1977 VA hospital summary showing that the veteran was hospitalized for excision of a neuroma of the right wrist. The report notes that the veteran reported sustaining a laceration to the proximal portions of the snuff box following which he had no particular problems until approximately five weeks prior to admission when he injured the area of the laceration and developed dysesthetic discomfort in the radial aspect of the right hand. The medical evidence added to the record since the June 1984 decision consists of private medical records, VA medical records, records pertaining to the veteran's reserve service and service medical records for the veteran's second period of service. None of the medical evidence added to the record suggests that the veteran's current right wrist disability originated or increased in severity during either period of active duty or is otherwise etiologically related to service. Therefore, the medical evidence added to the record is not so significant by itself or in conjunction with the evidence previously of record that it must be considered in order to fairly decide the merits of the claim. Statements of the veteran have also been added to the record since the June 1984 decision. In these statements, the veteran has essentially contended that his current right wrist disability is etiologically related to injury sustained during his first period of active duty. These statements are not material because the veteran is not competent to render this opinion concerning medical etiology. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494 (1992); Moray v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 211, 214 (1993). Service personnel records have also been added to the record but they provide no new information pertinent to the veteran's claim. Therefore, they are not new and material. In sum, no new and material evidence has been received to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a right wrist injury. The veteran claims that service connection is warranted for psychiatric disability because it is etiologically related to his second period of service and that service connection is warranted for stomach and gastroesophageal reflex disabilities because they originated in his second period of active duty. The veteran also asserts that his gastroesophageal reflux disability should be considered an undiagnosed illness which is etiologically related to his Persian Gulf service. The evidence of record at the time of the June 1994 decision included service medical records for both periods of active duty, reserve medical records, private medical records and VA medical records. The service medical records for the veteran's first period of active duty show that he was treated in March 1974 for gastroenteritis. They are otherwise negative for evidence of stomach disability, psychiatric disability or gastroesophageal disability. The report of the veteran's June 1975 examination for discharge shows that his psychiatric status and abdomen and viscera were found to be normal. The report of a December 1975 VA cholecystogram reveals that his esophagus had normal motility and there was no evidence of a hiatal hernia or reflux. At a December 1975 VA gastrointestinal examination, the veteran complained of pyrosis over the previous year. The examination resulted in a diagnosis of hepatitis. At an October 1976 VA gastrointestinal examination, the veteran complained of continued pyrosis and eructations throughout the day over the previous 4-5 months. The examination resulted in a diagnosis of hepatitis with no residuals. No other diagnosis was rendered on either VA gastrointestinal examination. Medical records pertaining to the veteran's reserve service and second period of active duty are negative for evidence of stomach disability, psychiatric disability or gastroesophageal disability. Treatment records from the Rice Clinic Medical Center dated in 1992 and 1993 show diagnoses of Barrett's esophagitis, esophageal stricture, gastroesophageal reflux, a hiatal hernia, erosive esophagitis, and dysphagia. They do not provide a link between the post-service diagnoses and service. Private and VA medical records have been added to the record since the June 1994 decision. There is no indication in the medical evidence added to the record that any of the claimed disabilities was present in service or are etiologically related to service. In fact, no medical evidence showing that the veteran has been diagnosed with a psychiatric disease has been added to the record. Therefore, the medical evidence added to the record is not so significant by itself or in the context of the evidence previously of record that it must be considered in order to fairly decide the merits of any of the previously denied claims. Service personnel records have also been added to the record but they provide no new information relevant to the veteran's claims. Therefore, they are not new and material. Statements of the veteran have also been added to the record. In these statements, the veteran has expressed his opinion that the claimed disabilities are etiologically related to his second period of active duty. As a lay person, he is not competent render a medical diagnosis or an opinion concerning medical etiology. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494-95 (1992); Moray v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 211, 214 (1993). Therefore, his statements are not material. With respect to the veteran's contention that his gastroesophageal reflux disability should be service- connected as an undiagnosed illness due to his Persian Gulf War service, the Board notes that the record reflects that the disability has been medically attributed to known clinical diagnoses and there is no medical evidence suggesting that it is due to an undiagnosed illness. Therefore, the presumptive provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 (1999) concerning undiagnosed illnesses manifested in Persian Gulf veterans are not applicable to the facts of this case. In sum, no new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for psychiatric disability, stomach disability or gastroesophageal reflux disability. ORDER New and material evidence not having been submitted, the appeal to reopen the claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability is denied. New and material evidence not having been submitted, the appeal to reopen the claim for service connection for a stomach disability is denied. New and material evidence not having been submitted, the appeal to reopen the claim for service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disability is denied. New and material evidence not having been submitted, the appeal to reopen the claim for service connection for residuals of a right wrist injury is denied. SHANE A. DURKIN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals