Citation Nr: 0007343 Decision Date: 03/17/00 Archive Date: 03/23/00 DOCKET NO. 95-21 842 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a birth defect manifested by speech impairment and gait dysfunction. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C.A. Skow, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty from March to June 1956. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a November 1994 rating decision of the New Orleans, Louisiana, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO). FINDING OF FACT Competent medical evidence has not been presented showing aggravation, increased disability during service, of the appellant's birth defect manifested by speech impairment and gait dysfunction. CONCLUSION OF LAW A well grounded claim for service connection for a birth defect manifested by speech impairment and gait dysfunction has not been presented. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1131, 5107 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.306 (1999). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The appellant seeks service connection for a birth defect manifested by speech impairment and gait dysfunction. Service connection may be granted, when the facts, as shown by the evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in chronic disability was incurred in service, or, if pre-existing service, was aggravated therein. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1999). Congenital or developmental defects are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of applicable legislation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c) (1999). However, a preexisting injury or disease will be considered to have been aggravated by active service where there is an increase in disability during such service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural progress of the disease. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1153 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a) (1999). The threshold question to be answered in all cases is whether the appellant's claim is well grounded; that is, whether it is plausible, meritorious on its own, or otherwise capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990); Epps v. Gober, 126 F. 3d 1464 (1997), adopting the definition in Epps v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 341, 344 (1996). If a particular claim is not well grounded, then the appeal fails and there is no further duty to assist in developing facts pertinent to the claim since such development would be futile. 38 U.S.C.A § 5107(a) (West 1991 & Supp. 1999). Furthermore, a claim which is not well grounded precludes the Board from reaching the merits of a claim. Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 14, 17 (1993). To establish a plausible claim, a veteran must present medical evidence of a current disability; medical evidence, or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence, of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and medical evidence of a nexus or link between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464 (1997); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995). Alternatively, a claim may be well grounded based on application of the rule for chronicity and continuity of symptomatology, set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1999). Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 489, 495-98 (1997). An appellant has, by statute, the duty to submit evidence that a claim is well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(a) (West 1991 & Supp. 1999). Where such evidence is not submitted, the claim is not well grounded, and the initial burden placed on the appellant is not met. See Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609 (1992). Evidentiary assertions by the appellant must be accepted as true for the purposes of determining whether a claim is well grounded, except where the evidentiary assertion is inherently incredible. See King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19 (1993). Service medical records are unavailable, but the appellant reports that he was born with speech impairment and gait dysfunction. He contends through statement and sworn testimony that these conditions were aggravated by his period of active service from March to June 1956. Specifically, he argues that hiking, running on the roads, and walking during service aggravated his pre-existing gait dysfunction. He reported that he currently experiences pain in his back, hips, and calves, and that he falls at least once a day when walking. Although VA outpatient treatment records from 1996 reflect the presence of slurred speech and that the appellant was seen for complaints of pain following falls in January and May 1996, competent medical evidence has not been presented showing that any speech impairment or gait dysfunction pre- existing service was thereafter aggravated by service. We note that, on VA examination in August 1999, the appellant reported that he sustained a cerebral vascular accident (CVA) in 1986 with residual left-sided weakness and slurred speech. He further reported that he was born with some speech impairment, but it worsened only after his stroke. The appellant also reported generalized headaches, paresthesia in the feet, forgetfulness, and balance difficulty. He denied balance problems prior to his CVA. The diagnoses were status post CVA with residual mild left hemiparesis and dysarthria, congenital speech problems that worsened due to CVA/dysarthria, and peripheral neuropathy of unknown etiology. A CT scan of the head revealed no abnormalities. As competent medical evidence has not been presented showing aggravation, increased disability during service, the claim for service connection is not well grounded. Although the appellant claimed during his March 1998 VA hearing that hiking, running on the roads, and walking during service aggravated his pre-existing gait dysfunction, his contentions do not constitute medical evidence of an increase in disability of his birth defect (impaired speech and gait dysfunction) because he is a layperson. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494-5 (1992). Considering the lack of medical evidence of an increase in disability of the appellant's birth defect during active service, the Board finds that the claim of entitlement to service connection for a birth defect manifested by speech impairment and gait dysfunction is not well grounded. For the above reasons, it is the decision of the Board that the veteran has failed to meet his initial burden of submitting evidence of a well-grounded claim for service connection for a birth defect manifested by speech impairment and gait dysfunction. The Board is not aware of any additional evidence that could serve to well ground the appellant's claim. As the duty to assist is not triggered here by a well grounded claim, the Board finds that the VA has no obligation to further develop the claim. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103 (West 1991); McKnight v. Gober, 131 F.3d 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Epps, supra; Grivois v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 136, 140 (1994). The Board also views its discussion as sufficient to inform the appellant of the evidence necessary to file a well-grounded claim for service connection. See Robinette, 8 Vet. App. at 73. ORDER Service connection for a birth defect manifested by speech impairment and gait dysfunction is denied. C.P. RUSSELL Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals