BVA9503262 DOCKET NO. 93-09 011 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas 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 Paul J. Somelofske, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from February 1941 to June 1945, from February 1946 to February 1949, and from February 1950 to July 1956. The appellant, who is the veteran's widow, is represented in this appeal by Disabled American Veterans. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Houston, Texas, Regional Office (RO), that denied service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. In her December 1992 substantive appeal, the appellant attempted to reopen the veteran's claim pertaining to the reduction of a 100 percent evaluation to 70 percent disabling. In a January 1993 letter to the veteran's Congressional representative, the RO explained that a February 1985 Board decision upheld the reduction and that the claim could not be reopened since the veteran was deceased. It appears, however, that the appellant has not been notified of the RO's decision. Such issue is not properly before the Board; it is referred to the RO for consideration. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The appellant and her representative contend, in essence, that service connection for the cause of the veteran's death is merited. The appellant asserts that the symptomatology of the veteran's service-connected anxiety reaction masked what should have been recognized as a heart problem. She maintains that depression resulting from the veteran's service-connected anxiety reaction and depression and embarrassment due to drainage from the veteran's prosthetic eye associated with his service- connected conjunctivitis contributed to his heart attack which precipitated his death. In addition, she states that the veteran's smoking in service lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease which also contributed to his heart attack. Lastly, the appellant contends that the medication the veteran was required to take for his service-connected anxiety reaction lead to liver dysfunction and, eventually, his death. A request is made that the Board consider all pertinent regulatory criteria in its appellate review. 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 for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death is not well grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran died on April [redacted] 1992, and the cause of death was reported to be hypertensive and arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 2. At the time of his death, the veteran was service-connected for enucleation, right eye, evaluated as 40 percent disabling; anxiety reaction, evaluated as 30 percent disabling; residuals of right ankle trauma, evaluated as 10 percent disabling; and conjunctivitis, evaluated as 10 percent disabling. His combined evaluation was 70 percent. He was in receipt of special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1114(k) based on the anatomical loss of one eye. 3. Hypertensive and arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the cause of the veteran's death, were not shown in service nor within the applicable presumptive period. 4. Hypertensive and arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease have not been clinically shown to be causally related to any of the veteran's service-connected disabilities. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran's claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS A person who submits a claim for benefits 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). A well-grounded claim is a plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. Such a claim need not be conclusive but only possible to satisfy the initial burden of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). Although the claim need not be conclusive, it must be accompanied by evidence. The VA benefits system requires more than just an allegation; a claimant must submit supporting evidence. Furthermore, the evidence must "justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual" that the claim is plausible. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 611 (1992). If a claim is not well grounded, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim; it is a nullity in law and may not be adjudicated. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993). To establish service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, the evidence must show that disability incurred in or aggravated by service either caused or contributed substantially or materially to cause death. For a service-connected disability to be the cause of death, it must singly or with some other condition be the immediate or underlying cause or be etiologically related. For a service-connected disability to constitute a contributory cause, it is not sufficient to show that it casually shared in producing death, but rather it must be shown that there was a causal connection. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1310 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.312.(1994). The veteran died on April [redacted] 1992, at the age of 74. The Certificate of Death shows that the immediate cause of death was hypertensive and arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease; no other condition was identified or implicated in the veteran's death. At the time of his death, the veteran was service connected for enucleation, right eye, evaluated as 40 percent disabling; anxiety reaction, evaluated as 30 percent disabling; residuals of right ankle trauma, evaluated as 10 percent disabling; and conjunctivitis, evaluated as 10 percent disabling. His combined evaluation was 70 percent. He was in receipt of special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1114(k) based on the anatomical loss of one eye. The veteran's service medical records for all three periods of service, including his retirement examination report, dated in July 1956, are all silent as to complaints, treatment or findings of hypertensive or arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease. During a VA medical examination performed in September 1982, a chest X-ray report noted slight tortuosity of the descending thoracic aorta. VA outpatient treatment records dated in 1982 and 1983, include complaints of chest pain. In December 1983, it was reported that the chest pain decreased with the use of sublingual nitroglycerin. The first evidence of heart disease of record is a notation in a VA hospitalization report for a period of confinement in February and March 1992, which indicates that the veteran suffered a myocardial infarction in June 1987, over twenty years after his separation from service. The appellant has not contended that the veteran's hypertensive and arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease were manifested in service or within one year of separation from service. It is noted, however, that there is no evidence in the record establishing that hypertensive or arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease were present in service, were manifested within one year of the veteran's separation from service, or are etiologically related to service or any service-connected disability. The appellant contends, however, that the symptomatology of the veteran's service-connected anxiety reaction masked what should have been recognized as a heart problem. She states that depression resulting from the veteran's service-connected anxiety reaction and conjunctivitis contributed to his heart attack which precipitated his death. In support of her claim, she has submitted a copy of an article found in a Villa Rosa Hospital newspaper, discussing the general aspects of depression as related to stroke and heart disease. In addition, she argues that the veteran's smoking in service led to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease which also contributed to his heart attack. Lastly, the appellant asserts that the medication the veteran was required to take for his service-connected anxiety reaction led to liver dysfunction and, eventually, his death. There is, however, no medical opinion or clinical evidence of record that directly relates the veteran's hypertensive or arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the cause of his death, to depression due to any service-connected disability; to smoking in service; to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; or to liver dysfunction due to the medication the veteran was taking for service- connected disabilities. While the appellant's contentions are noted, it must be pointed out that she is not a medical professional and is not competent to offer medical opinions regarding the cause of the veteran's death. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992). There is no evidence of record to show that a service-connected disability either caused or contributed substantially or materially to the veteran's death, or that a service-connected disability is etiologically or causally related to the veteran's death. Where a determinative issue involves a medical diagnosis or medical causation, competent evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible is required to establish that a claim is well grounded. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). As no evidence to this effect has been submitted by the appellant, the Board must conclude that the appellant's claim is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). ORDER The appellant's claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death is dismissed. RENÉE M. PELLETIER 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.