Citation Nr: 0006883 Decision Date: 03/14/00 Archive Date: 03/17/00 DOCKET NO. 98-02 154A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. 2. Entitlement to service connection for arthritis of the hands. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Georgia Department of Veterans Service ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Scott B. Mexic, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from December 1992 until December 1996. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 1997, rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia. In that decision, the RO denied the veteran's claim for service connection, among other disabilities, herniated nucleus pulposus L4-5 and L5-6 status post diskectomy, hypertension and arthritis of the hands. While the appeal was pending, the RO, in a November 1999 rating decision granted service connection for degenerative arthritis, lumbar spine, with degenerative disc disease, status post diskectomy and foraminotomy L4-5 and L5-6. Consequently, the appeal on this issue was resolved. The veteran appears to raise a new claim in his November 1997 Notice of Disagreement where he appears to expand his claim of arthritis from the hands to the hands and wrists. Since there has been no review of the veteran's claim for service connection for arthritis of the wrists, this matter is referred to the RO for appropriate action. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran has not submitted competent medical evidence establishing that he has hypertension. 2. The veteran has not submitted competent medical evidence establishing that he has a arthritis of the hands. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The claim of entitlement to service connection for hypertension is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107 (a) (West 1991). 2. The claim of entitlement to service connection for arthritis of the hands is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107 (a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The issues before the Board are whether the veteran is entitled to service connection for hypertension and a arthritis of the hands. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 101(16), 1110, 1131 (West 1991). Moreover, in the case of a diagnosis of arthritis or hypertension, service connection may be granted if either disease is manifested in service, or manifested to a compensable degree within one year following separation from service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (1999). In addition, service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1999). However, a veteran who submits a claim(s) for benefits to the VA shall have the burden of offering sufficient evidence to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded. See 38 U.S.C.A. 5107 (a) (West 1991). In the absence of evidence of a well-grounded claim, there is no duty to assist the veteran in developing the facts pertinent to his claim, and the claim must fail. Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464, 1467-68 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The veteran must demonstrate three elements to establish that a claim is well grounded. First, the veteran must present medical evidence of a current disability. Second, the veteran must produce medical evidence, or in some instances, lay evidence of an in-service incidence or aggravation of a disease or injury. Finally, the veteran must offer medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Epps, 126 F.3d at 1468- 69. A veteran may also establish a well-grounded claim for service connection under the chronicity provision of 38 C.F.R. 3.303(b) (1999), which is applicable where evidence, regardless of its date, shows that a veteran had a chronic condition in service or during an applicable presumptive period, and that the same condition currently exists (in- service incidence or aggravation of a disease). Such evidence must be medical unless the condition at issue is a type as to which, under case law, lay observation is considered to demonstrate its existence. If the chronicity provision is not applicable, a claim still may be well-grounded pursuant to the same regulation if the evidence shows that the condition was observed during service, or any applicable presumptive period, and continuity of symptomatology was demonstrated thereafter, and includes competent evidence relating (nexus) the current condition to that symptomatology (current condition). Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 495-98 (1997). However, in the two issues under consideration in this claim, the veteran fails to submit credible evidence that the alleged conditions exited during service. Furthermore, the veteran's current symptoms do not support a diagnosis of hypertension or a bilateral wrist and hand disorder to include arthritis. Although the veteran's service medical records and the VA examination in 1998 do indicate complaints of hand pain, there no competent evidence of a diagnosis of a arthritis of the hands or hypertension. Furthermore the veteran has not submitted competent medical evidence that he suffers from arthritis or hypertension. The only evidence of the existence of either of these disabilities is the veteran's lay statements contained in his claim. Because the veteran is a layperson with no medical training or expertise, his contentions standing along do not constitute competent medical evidence of a current disability. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494-5 (1992). Accordingly, as the veteran has not submitted competent medical evidence establishing that he currently has hypertension, or arthritis of the hands, his claim must be denied as not well grounded. The duty to assist is not triggered until a claimant has submitted a well-grounded claim. See Epps, 126 F.3d at 1467-68. In this claim, the veteran has failed to submit such a claim, therefore the Department has no obligation to further assist the veteran in developing facts pertinent to his claim and the claim must fail. See Morton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 477 (1999) The Board is not aware of the existence of additional relevant evidence that could serve to well ground the veteran's claims. As such, there is no duty on the part of the VA under 38 U.S.C.A. 5103 (a) (West 1991) to notify the veteran of evidence required to complete his application for service connection for the claimed disabilities. See McKnight v. Gober, 131 F. 3d 1483, 1484-5 (Fed. Cir. 1997). That notwithstanding, the Board views its discussion as sufficient to inform the veteran of the elements necessary to well ground his claims and to explain why his current attempts fail. ORDER A well-grounded claim not having been submitted, service connection for hypertension is denied. A well-grounded claim not having been submitted, service connection for bilateral hand arthritis is denied. CONSTANCE B. TOBIAS Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals