BVA9508407 DOCKET NO. 91-51 246 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver, Colorado THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for peptic ulcer disease. 2. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for status post excision of chalazions of both eyelids. 3. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for tinea cruris and tinea pedis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and his spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Ronald R. Bosch, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from December 1967 to July 1971. This appeal arises from a January 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Denver, Colorado. The RO, in relevant part, assigned a noncompensable evaluation for status post excision of chalazions of both eyelids, and denied entitlement to service connection for peptic ulcer disease. This appeal also arises from a March 1991 rating decision which denied a compensable evaluation for tinea cruris and tinea pedis. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) remanded the case to the RO for further development in August 1992. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he has peptic ulcer disease which originated in active service. He avers that his status post excision of chalazions of both eyelids, and tinea cruris and pedis are sufficiently disabling as to warrant compensable evaluations. 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 veteran has not submitted evidence of a well grounded claim for service connection for peptic ulcer disease, and that the preponderance of the evidence is against compensable evaluations for status post excision of chalazions of both eyelids, and for tinea cruris and tinea pedis. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The claim for service connection for peptic ulcer disease is not supported by cognizable evidence showing that the claim is plausible or capable of substantiation. 2. The veteran’s post operative residuals of bilateral eyelid chalazion excisions are not productive of scarring which is poorly nourished or repeatedly ulcerated, tender and painful scars on objective demonstration, or residuals which are productive of a limitation of eyelid function. 3. Tinea pedis and tinea cruris is productive of not more than slight, if any, exfoliation, exudation or itching, on a nonexposed surface. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The claim for service connection for peptic ulcer disease is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). 2. The criteria for an increased (compensable) evaluation for status post excision of chalazions of both eyelids have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1), 4.7, 4.31, 4.118, Diagnostic Codes 7803, 7804, 7805 (1994). 3. The criteria for an increased (compensable) evaluation for tinea cruris and tinea pedis have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1), 4.7, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7806 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. Entitlement to service connection for peptic ulcer disease. Section 5107 of Title 38, United Stated Code unequivocally places an initial burden upon the claimant to produce evidence that his claim is well grounded; that is, that the claim is plausible. Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136, 139 (1994); Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 92 (1993). Because the veteran has failed to meet this burden, the Board finds that his claim for service connection for peptic ulcer disease is not well grounded, and that it should be dismissed. Service connection may be granted for a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110. If not shown during service, service connection may be granted for peptic ulcer disease if the disorder is shown to have been disabling to a compensable degree during the first post service year. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (1994). Where the determinative issue involves causation or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible is required. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). The claimant does not meet this burden by merely presenting his lay opinion because he is not a health care professional and does not constitute competent medical authority. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992). Consequently, his lay assertions cannot constitute cognizable evidence, and as cognizable evidence is necessary for a well grounded claim, Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 611 (1992), the absence of cognizable evidence renders a veteran's claim not well grounded. Although the veteran has contended to the contrary, his service medical records are totally devoid of a finding of peptic ulcer disease. What the service medical records do show is that he was treated in October 1969 for symptomatology reported as abdominal pain and headaches. It was noted that he had been under a great deal of stress for the prior three weeks. A physical examination disclosed that the abdomen was soft, that bowel sounds were active, and that there was moderate generalized tenderness. Two weeks later he returned with complaints of stomach cramps. Physical examination findings from the second session were not recorded. The veteran was treated with Donnitol and Maalox. In October 1970 the appellant reported for treatment of a three day history of intermittent cramping abdominal pain. There was no nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea, and there were no chills or evidence of fever. On examination the abdomen was flat, soft, and without masses. There was mild generalized tenderness without guarding, and there were slightly hyperactive bowel sounds. The diagnostic impression was possible gastroenteritis. Two days later the appellant returned with complaints of continuing symptomatology although it had somewhat improved after taking Librax. There was more belching and passing of flatus than normal. On examination there was mid-abdominal tenderness without guarding, and moderately hyperactive bowel sounds. The diagnostic impression was gastroenteritis. The veteran’s May 1971 separation examination report is negative for any gastrointestinal abnormalities. Clinical evaluation noted a normal abdomen. The veteran was privately hospitalized during May and June 1975 for treatment of possible appendicitis. An upper gastrointestinal x-ray demonstrated pylorospasm but no active ulcer craters were seen. The discharge diagnosis was gastroenteritis and pylorospasm. In November 1978, the veteran was treated at a VA hospital. At discharge a diagnosis of "status post peptic ulcer disease" was made. No pertinent findings were recorded. A VA hospital discharge summary for admission in March 1980 notes that an abdominal examination was recorded as normal. At an October 1990 VA examination the veteran reported he had had stomach pains since onset of peptic ulcer disease. An evaluation of the gastrointestinal system disclosed a tender epigastrium and present bowel sounds. An upper gastrointestinal x-ray was not taken. The examiner diagnosed peptic ulcer disease. The veteran testified as to his history of gastrointestinal symptomatology at an RO hearing held in June 1991. He testified that pain and abdominal cramping which had commenced in service persisted thereafter. The Board observes that gastrointestinal symptomatology reported in service was never found to be reflective of peptic ulcer disease. Peptic ulcer disease was not diagnosed when the appellant was privately hospitalized in 1975, and while peptic ulcer disease was diagnosed when the claimant was examined by VA in November 1978 and in October 1990, there was no radiographic confirmation of either diagnosis. In other words, it is not shown that peptic ulcer disease currently is manifest. Hence, the veteran’s claim is not well grounded. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141 (1992). Assuming arguendo, however, that the veteran now has peptic ulcer disease, the Board observes that there is no competent medical evidence of record to show that any associated gastrointestinal symptomatology is related to his period of active duty service. A well grounded claim cannot be predicated on the veteran's allegations of onset of peptic ulcer disease during service because the veteran, as a layperson untrained in the field of medicine, is not competent to offer an opinion which requires medical expertise. Accordingly, the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for peptic ulcer disease is not well grounded, and it must be dismissed. The Board recognizes that the veteran's claim has been disposed of in a manner different from that utilized by the RO. The Board 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 herein. In this regard, the Board points out that by dismissing his claim, the Board has not burdened the veteran with a prior final adjudication on the merits. Thus, if he is able to submit a well grounded claim in the future, he will not be faced with the higher hurdle of providing new and material evidence to reopen his claim after a prior final adjudication. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5108, 7104, 7105 (West 1991); McGinnis v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 239, 244 (1993). The Board also observes that the RO, in assuming that the veteran's claim was well grounded, accorded him greater consideration than his claim in fact warranted under the circumstances. Bernard. To remand the case to the RO for consideration of the issue of whether the appellant's claim is well grounded would be pointless and, in light of the law cited above, would not result in a determination favorable to him. VA O.G.C. Prec. Op. 16-92, 57 Fed.Reg. 49,747 (1992). II. Entitlement to compensable evaluations for status post excision of chalazions of both eyelids, and for tinea cruris and tinea pedis. The Board finds that these claims are well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a), in that the veteran has presented claims which are plausible. The Board is satisfied that as a result of the August 1992 remand of the case to the RO for further development, that all relevant facts have been properly developed, and that no further assistance to the veteran is required in order to comply with 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). In accordance with 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, and Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991), the Board has reviewed the service medical records and all other evidence of record pertaining to the history of the veteran's status post excision of chalazions of both eyelids, and tinea cruris and tinea pedis. The Board has found nothing in the historical record which would lead to a conclusion that the current evidence of record is inadequate for rating purposes. The service medical records show that the veteran required treatment for complaints of a rash in the scrotal area and a fungus infection of the feet. Due to symptomatic chalazions of both eyes, he underwent excisions. An October 1987 VA dermatology examination disclosed a mild erythema with scale on the sole of the right foot, and in the interdigital toe webs between the fourth and fifth toes. There was mild erythema and scale at the inguinal creases bilaterally. The RO granted entitlement to service connection for tinea cruris and tinea pedis with assignment of a noncompensable evaluation when it issued a rating decision in February 1988. At an October 1990 VA examination the veteran reported that his crotch and feet itched and burned and required antifungal treatment. The skin showed desquamation of both soles. There were no fissures or erythema between the digits of the feet. There was some cream on the inguinal area without any papules, excoriation or fissuring. A clinical inspection of the eyes disclosed conjunctival injection with scleral overgrowth on the lateral aspect of both eyes, not crossing the cornea. The diagnostic impressions were status post excision of pterygium, bilaterally with conjunctivitis, and controlled tinea cruris and tinea pedis. VA outpatient treatment reports dated in 1991 show corrected visual acuity bilaterally is 20/20. The veteran testified as to the disabling manifestations of his status post excision of chalazions of both eyelids, and of his tinea cruris and tinea pedis at a June 1991 RO hearing. He was of the opinion that compensable disablement was demonstrated. A November 1992 VA ophthalmological examination report shows there was no evidence of chalazions or residuals from the 1968 removal. The appellant's status post excision of chalazions of both eyelids is evaluated as noncompensable under diagnostic code 7805 of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. Under diagnostic code 7805, scarring may be rated on the basis of limitation of function of the part affected. A noncompensable evaluation is in effect since there are no ascertainable disabling residuals. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31. In examining the veteran’s entitlement to a compensable evaluation for status post excision of chalazions of both eyelids, the Board notes that not even residual scarring was reported by the VA examiner when the veteran was examined in November 1992. As a compensable evaluation under 7803 requires evidence of poorly nourished or repeatedly ulcerated scars, and as a compensable evaluation under diagnostic code 7804 requires scars which are productive of pain and tenderness on objective examination, a compensable evaluation under either of these diagnostic codes is not warranted. In examining whether a compensable evaluation is warranted under the currently assigned diagnostic code 7805, the Board observes that there is no evidence that the function of either eyelid is impaired due to residuals of the chalazion excisions. Rather, the veteran’s current eyelid dysfunction has been associated with blepharospasms, a nonservice connected disorder. Hence, a compensable evaluation under diagnostic code 7805 is also not warranted. As to tinea cruris and tinea pedis, the Board observes this disability is evaluated as noncompensable under diagnostic code 7806 of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The noncompensable evaluation contemplates slight, if any, exfoliation, exudation or itching, if on a nonexposed surface or small area. The next higher evaluation of 10 percent under this code requires exfoliation, exudation or itching, if involving an exposed surface or extensive area. The October 1990 VA examination disclosed that the veteran's disorder is still confined to the groin and feet areas, that is, to areas which are not exposed and which are not extensive in size. These findings are consistent with the noncompensable evaluation currently in effect. In evaluating these disorders the Board finds that a question as to which of two evaluations would more properly classify the extent of their severity is not presented. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Neither disorder renders the veteran's disability picture unusual or exceptional in nature, and neither disorder has markedly interfered with employment. Finally, neither disorder has required frequent inpatient care as to render impractical the application of regular schedular standards. Hence, grants of increased (compensable) evaluations on an extraschedular basis are not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). ORDER The claim for service connection for peptic ulcer disease is dismissed. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for status post excision of chalazions of both eyelids is denied. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for tinea cruris and tinea pedis is denied. DEREK R. BROWN 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.