Citation Nr: 0006080 Decision Date: 03/07/00 Archive Date: 09/08/00 DOCKET NO. 98-14 797 DATE MAR 07, 2000 On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Buffalo, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for headaches claimed as secondary to the service-connected enucleation of the left eye. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michelle L. Nelsen, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty from December 1967 to May 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 1998 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Buffalo, New York. FINDING OF FACT There is no competent medical evidence of a nexus between the veteran's alleged headaches and the service-connected enucleation of the left eye. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for headaches claimed as secondary to the service-connected enucleation of the left eye is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. 3.102 (1999). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. 3.303(a) (1999). A disability is service connected if it is proximately due to or the result of a service connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. 3.310(a). In addition, secondary service connection may also be established when there is aggravation of a veteran's non-service connected condition that is proximately due to or the result of a service- connected condition. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995); Tobin v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 34, 39 (1991). In those circumstances, compensation is allowable for the degree of disability (but only that degree) over and above the degree of disability existing prior to the aggravation. Allen, 7 Vet. App. at 448. - 2 - However, a person claiming VA benefits must meet the initial burden of submitting evidence "sufficient to justify a belief in a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded." 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(a); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 91 (1990); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). A claim that is well grounded is plausible, meritorious on its own, or capable of substantiation. Murphy, 1 Vet. App. at 81; Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389, 393 (1996). For purposes of determining whether a claim is well grounded, the Board presumes the truthfulness of the supporting evidence. Anns v. West, 12 Vet. App. 188, 193 (1999); Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 75 (1995); King v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 19, 21 (1993). In order for a claim to be well grounded, there must be competent evidence of a current disability (a medical diagnosis); of incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service (lay or medical evidence); and of a nexus between the in-service injury or disease and the current disability (medical evidence). Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464, 1468 (1997); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 504 (1995). Where the determinative issue involves a medical diagnosis, there must be competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible; lay assertions of -medical status do not constitute competent medical evidence. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91, 93 (1993); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494 (1992). Secondary service connection claims must also be well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(a); Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998); Locher v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 535, 538 (1996); Jones v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 134, 136-38 (1994). A secondary service connection claim is well grounded only if there is medical evidence to connect the asserted secondary disorder to the service-connected disability. Velez v. West, 11 Vet. App. 148, 158 (1998). VA cannot undertake to assist a veteran in developing facts pertinent to his claim until and unless the veteran submits a well grounded claim. Morton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 477, 486 (1999). In this case, the Board finds that the veteran's claim for headaches secondary to the service-connected left eye disability is not well grounded. The veteran claims that - 3 - he has headaches and the report of the June 1998 computed tomography scan indicates that the study was ordered in connection with complaints of cephalalgia. However, there is no competent medical evidence of record that links the headaches to the service- connected left eye disability. In fact, the only evidence that suggests a relationship between the two disorders is the veteran's own statements. There is no evidence of record showing that the veteran is a trained medical professional. Therefore, while he is competent to relate and describe symptoms associated with his headaches, but he is not competent to offer an opinion on matters that require medical knowledge, such as a determination of etiology of the headaches. Grottveit, 5 Vet. App. at 93; Espiritu, 2 Vet. App. at 494. Under these circumstances, the Board finds that the veteran has not submitted a well grounded claim for service connection for headaches claimed as secondary to the service-connected enucleated left eye. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(a); 38 C.F.R. 3.102; Epps, 126 F.3d at 1468. Therefore, the duty to assist is not triggered and VA has no obligation to further develop the veteran's claim. Epps, 126 F.3d at 1469; Morton, 12 Vet. App. at 486; Grivois v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 136, 140 (1994). If the veteran wishes to complete his application for secondary service connection for headaches, he should submit competent medical evidence that provides a link between the two disorders. 38 U.S.C.A. 5103(a); Robinette, 8 Vet. App. at 77-80. ORDER Service connection for headaches claimed as secondary to the sen,ice-connected enucleation of the left eye is denied. RENEE M. PELLETIER Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals 4 -