BVA9507259 DOCKET NO. 93-12 149 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of spinal meningitis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder secondary to an inservice spinal tap injury. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Siobhan Brogdon, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1971 until August 1974. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a rating decision of June 1992 from the Columbia, South Carolina Regional Office (RO) which denied service connection for residuals of spinal meningitis and a back disorder secondary to spinal tap in service. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran asserts that he was treated for spinal meningitis in service and now has residuals thereof. He also contends that when he was hospitalized for that disease, he was afforded a spinal tap which injured his spine and resulted in a continuing painful condition. He maintains that following the procedure, he " was not the same person" and from that moment, his back began to hurt. He avers that after discharge from service, the disorder became much worse and now affects the whole of his cervical and lumbar spine. 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 files. 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 veteran has not presented well-grounded claims. FINDING OF FACT The claims for service connection for residuals of spinal meningitis and back injury due to spinal tap are not supported by cognizable evidence showing that the claims are plausible or capable of substantiation. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claims for service connection for residuals of spinal meningitis and a back disorder secondary to spinal tap injury are not well-grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The threshold question to be answered in this case is whether the appellant has presented evidence of a well-grounded claim; that is one which is plausible and meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. It he has not, his appeal must fail. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). The Board finds that the appellant's claims for service connection for residuals of spinal meningitis and back disability due to spinal tap are not well-grounded, and that there is no further duty to assist him in the development of his claim. The service medical records show that the veteran was seen on an emergency basis in October 1971 approximately six weeks after entering active duty for symptoms which included fever, cough and a sore throat of 24 hours' duration. An assessment of upper respiratory infection; rule out meningococcemia was made. He was hospitalized and a lumbar spine puncture was accomplished which was determined to be unremarkable. A diagnosis of acute respiratory disease was rendered following a six-day admission. The service medical records reflect that the veteran was seen in sick bay on many subsequent occasion for conditions not pertinent to this appeal. No complaints referable to spinal meningitis or his back are recorded. The service discharge examination report of May 1974 notes no pertinent defect or abnormality. The veteran first filed a claim for spinal meningitis and a back disorder in December 1991. VA outpatient clinical records dating from 1988 were submitted in this regard showing that he was seen in February 1991 for a left shoulder injury he stated he had sustained six to seven months previously after engaging in heavy lifting required on his job. He received follow up care for left shoulder symptoms. In February 1992, the veteran had complaints of pain in the neck with tingling in the left arm. He gave a history of a deteriorating disc in the neck with radiation into the left arm of one year's duration. He also indicated that he had had meningitis approximately 20 years before and had had mild pain since that time. A CAT scan of the cervical spine was performed in March 1992 showing cervical disc bulges at C4-C5 and C6-C7. Multiple X-ray views of the lumbar spine in June 1992 were interpreted as indicating degenerative spondylosis. It was noted that spurs were observed on several of the vertebrae; that L1 and L2 may have been injured in the past and that Schmorl's nodes were visible on those two vertebrae. The claims folder also contains documentation showing that the veteran served continuously in the National Guard from service discharge until 1990 (with a break between 1977 and 1979) without any physical limitations. Although the veteran now claims that he has residuals of spinal meningitis, there is no showing that he even had that disease in service, nor any showing of current residuals. As to the claim that a spinal tap resulted in continuing back disability, it must be pointed out that the procedure was performed very early in the veteran's service and there is absolutely no indication of any continuing back complaints despite the fact that he was seen on numerous other occasions for various complaints. In fact there is no evidence of any back disability for almost 20 years after service discharge. It is significant to note that cervical and lumbar spine disability was shown to have followed a heavy lifting injury in 1990. No pathology of the cervical or lumbar spine was indicated on National Guard fitness examinations which are of record for the years 1979, 1983 and 1987. It is well established that where the determinative issues involve medical causation or a medical diagnosis, competent evidence is required to make a claim "plausible" or "possible." Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). The appellant as a layperson who is untrained in the field of medicine is not competent to provide a medical opinion. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992). The record contains no evidence of spinal meningitis in service, or any clinical support that there are any current ramifications of such. It is also not medically demonstrated that the lumbar puncture he underwent in service resulted in any chronic residuals. Consequently, his assertions that current disabilities are in some way of service onset are not cognizable ones upon which to reach the merits of these matters. The claim cannot therefore be found to be well-grounded and must be dismissed. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 611 (1992). In reaching this determination the Board recognizes that these issues are being disposed of in a manner different from that utilized by the RO. The Board has therefore considered whether the claimant has been given adequate notice to respond, and if not, whether he has been prejudiced thereby. Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 384 (1993). In light of the implausibility of the appellant's claim and his failure to meet his initial burden in the adjudication process, the Board concludes that he has not been prejudiced by the decision to dismiss the claim. Moreover, a finding that the appellant has not submitted a well grounded application is a denial that there is a valid claim. Glynn v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 523, 528 (1994). Hence, the Board is not denying service connection for residuals of spinal meningitis and residuals of back injury due to lumbar puncture, but merely finding that the appellant has failed to meet his burden of presenting a claim capable of substantiation at this time. As such, this decision does not stand as a bar to any future attempt to secure service connection in this regard. ORDER The claims for service connection for residuals of spinal meningitis and a back disorder secondary to spinal tap injury are not well-grounded. The appeal is dismissed. ALBERT D. TUTERA 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.