BVA9502394 
DOCKET NO.  93- 07 873    )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's
death.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

James A. Frost, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from November 1942 to October
1944.

This appeal arises from administrative decisions in February 1992
and April 1992 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
regional office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL

The appellant contends that there must have been some
relationship between injuries sustained by the veteran during
World War II and the development of colorectal cancer many years
later, because the injuries were to parts of the body in
proximity to the rectum and colon.

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 appellant's claim is not well-grounded and,
consequently, her appeal must be dismissed.

FINDING OF FACT

The appellant has not presented a claim which is plausible or
capable of substantiation.
CONCLUSION OF LAW

The appellant has not presented a well-grounded claim.  38
U.S.C.A. § 5107
(West 1991).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The record discloses that the veteran died on December [redacted] 1991.
The death certificate shows the cause of death as metastatic
colorectal carcinoma, which had its onset three years earlier.

The veteran's service medical records show that in October 1943
in Italy he sustained various injuries in a motorcycle-truck
accident.  At the time of his death service connection was in
effect for residuals of a fracture of the pelvis and pubic and
ischial rami and deformity of the urinary bladder, with a
combined disability evaluation of 20 percent since 1963.

Applicable regulations provide that, in determining whether
service connected disability contributed to death, it must be
shown that it contributed substantially or materially; that it
combined to cause death; that it aided or lent assistance to the
production of death.  It is not sufficient to show that service
connected disability casually shared in producing death, but
rather it must be shown that there was a causal connection
between service connected disability and death.
38 C.F.R. § 3.312(c).

The appellant believes that there was a causal connection between
the veteran's service connected injuries and his death from
colorectal cancer.  She has stated that, "The cancer concentrated
in the weakest part of his body- the part that was injured in
service".

A person claiming entitlement to VA benefits has the burden of
submitting supporting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by
a fair and impartial individual that the claim is plausible.
Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992).  When the issue is
factual in nature, such as whether an incident occurred in
service, competent lay testimony may constitute sufficient
evidence to establish a well-grounded claim.  However, where the
determinative issue involves medical causation or a medical
diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the
claim is plausible is required.  Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App.
91 (1993).  A person without medical training or expertise is not
qualified to offer competent medical evidence.  Espiritu v.
Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992).

The record contains no medical evidence whatsoever to support the
appellant's belief that the veteran's injuries in the 1940's had
something to do with the development of colorectal cancer in the
late 1980's.  No physician or qualified medical expert has
indicated that the cancer was etologically related or otherwise
due to the service incurred impairments.  If she is able to
obtain competent evidence of a relationship, she may refile her
claim and it will be decided de novo or without regard to our
current decsion. The appellant, a layperson, is not a physician
and cannot offer a medical opinion on a question of medical
causation.  Her claim is thus not well-grounded and must be
dismissed.  38 U.S.C.A. § 510

ORDER

The appellant's claim having been found to be not well-grounded,
the appeal is dismissed.

          BRUCE KANNEE
          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.