BVA9501607 DOCKET NO. 93-12 895 ) 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. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Auer, Counsel REMAND The veteran served on active duty from October 1942 to October 1945 and from June 1946 to June 1964. At the time of the veteran's death on February 8, 1992, service connection was in effect for postoperative residuals of a duodenal ulcer and appendectomy, rated as 20 percent disabling. Noncompensable evaluations were in effect for the veteran's service-connected hypoglycemia and residuals of fractures of several ribs. The veteran had appointed The American Legion as his accredited representative. This appeal arises from an April 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Houston, Texas, Regional Office (RO). In that decision, service connection for the cause of the veteran's death was denied. At the time of this decision, the most recent clinical data concerning the veteran was dated in the early 1980's. The RO sent a copy of the notice of this decision to The American Legion; however, in subsequent correspondence to the appellant, the RO held that she had no representative. The veteran's certificate of death indicates that he died of arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease and that an autopsy had been performed; however, the report of autopsy is not currently of record. In her substantive appeal dated in December 1992, the appellant indicated that there were additional medical records available from Fort Sam Houston, Texas (BAMC) which would fill in the gap in the record from the early 1980's until the veteran's death in February 1992. She indicated that these records might support her claim that the veteran's death was due to his service- connected disabilities. The threshold question is whether the appellant has presented evidence of a well-grounded claim. A well-grounded claim is one that is plausible, that is, one that is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. If a claimant has not presented a well-grounded claim, her appeal must fail. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136 (1994); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 82 (1990). Under the law, a claim for benefits need not be conclusive, but it must be accompanied by evidence. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 604 (1992). Where the determinative issue is one of medical causation or diagnosis, only those with specialized medical knowledge, training, or experience are competent to provide evidence on the issue. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992). The assertions of a lay party on matters of medical causation are not sufficient to make a claim well grounded. Moray v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 511 (1993). In this case, although the appellant placed the RO on notice of the existence of evidence which might complete her application, no effort was made to obtain these treatment records. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that fulfillment of the VA's duty to assist includes the procurement and consideration of any relevant medical records of which the VA has notice even when the appellant does not specifically request that such records be procured. Ivey v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 320, 323 (1992). Thus, even though the appellant's claim may not appear to be well grounded at this juncture, once the development below is completed, the record must again be reviewed to determine whether her claim is ultimately well grounded. The Board finds that the actions ordered below are warranted. Accordingly, the claim is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should request the appellant to supply copies of any of the veteran's medical records in her possession and to list the names and addresses of physicians and facilities where the veteran received treatment subsequent to 1982. The RO should obtain all treatment records concerning the veteran from all sources identified by the appellant, to include all treatment records subsequent to 1982 from the medical facility at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, as well as a copy of the autopsy report. 2. The RO should notify the appellant of her options with regard to representation. She should be provided with VA Form 21-22, "Appointment Of Veterans Service Organization As Claimant's Representative." Based upon the response received from the appellant, the RO should ensure her receipt of due process, to include affording any duly appointed representative the opportunity to review the claims folder. 3. Following the above action, the rating board should review the appellant's claim of entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death. If the benefit sought is not granted, the appellant (and any representative she may appoint) should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case to include a summary of the additional evidence obtained. After the applicable period of time for response, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain clarifying medical information and ensure all due process. No action is required of the appellant until she receives further notice. GARY L. GICK 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 deter- mination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1993).