BVA9503348 DOCKET NO. 93-14 368 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Newark, New Jersey THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left wrist injury. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD John Z. Jones, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran-appellant served in the active military service from October 1949 to January 1953. This appeal arises from a May 1992 rating decision from the Newark, New Jersey, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). At the veteran's request, a hearing was scheduled in April 1993 before a member of the Board in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The veteran failed to attend the hearing. The veteran also failed to attend a rescheduled hearing in February 1994. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that in service his left wrist injury was diagnosed as a fracture and that over the last five years he has experienced pain, swelling, and weakness. He maintains that co- workers have observed him on occasion with swelling of his wrist. He expresses a willingness to report for a VA examination. 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 claim of service connection for residuals of a left wrist injury is not well-grounded. FINDING OF FACT The veteran has failed to submit evidence to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that a claim of service connection for residuals of a left wrist injury is plausible. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran has not submitted a well-grounded claim of service connection for residuals of a left wrist injury. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Factual Background The service medical records show that in December 1951 the veteran was seen at the dispensary, following a left wrist injury suffered in a football game. The initial diagnosis was a simple fracture of the styloid process of the left ulna. The day after the injury he was transferred to the 10th Field Hospital, where X-rays of the left wrist failed to reveal any bone injury, old or recent. He was treated conservatively and released from the hospital to duty after six days. The final diagnosis was left wrist sprain, replacing the diagnosis of fracture of the styloid process as not concurred in. On separation examination in January 1953, history included a "right" wrist fracture in December 1951 and hospitalization at the 10th Field Hospital. Evaluation of the upper extremities was normal. VA examinations in August and December 1958 noted complaints and findings limited to the right wrist and ankle. Records of C. H. Rosen, M.D., covering the years 1987-1989, disclose treatment of several orthopedic problems unrelated to the left wrist for which anti-inflammatory medication and analgesics were prescribed. In his notice of disagreement and substantive appeal, the veteran asserts that the left wrist fracture was diagnosed by a physician, that he was shown the X-rays, and that he was surprised to learn that the injury was later diagnosed as a sprain as he was not so informed. He also asserts that he never went to a doctor for his left wrist because he had been told that nothing could be done or he probably had arthritis that caused the pain, swelling, and weakness. He also asserts that he never went to Dr. Rosen for a left wrist problem, but Dr. Rosen did prescribe a drug for unrelated conditions that also relieved his wrist problems. Analysis Pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a), the veteran has the initial burden of submitting evidence to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well -grounded. In Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) defined a well-grounded claim as "a plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. Such a claim need not be conclusive but only possible to satisfy the initial burden of § [5107(a)]." Where the determinative issue involves medical causation or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is "plausible" or "possible" is required. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). A determination of service connection requires a finding of the existence of a current disability and a determination of a relationship between that disability and an injury or disease incurred in service. See 38 U.S.C.A. § § 1110, 1131 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1994); Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 309, 314 (1993). That the veteran sustained an injury to his left wrist during service, as documented in the service medical records, is not in dispute. There is, however, disagreement over the nature of the injury. The veteran asserts that X-rays shown to him at the dispensary indicated a fracture of the left wrist. The service medical records, however, indicate that the diagnosis was changed to a sprained left wrist when X-rays taken the next day at the 10th Field Hospital revealed no broken bone. Thus, the veteran must show residuals of a left wrist sprain to make his claim for service connection "plausible" or "possible". Against this background, the Board must decide whether the supporting evidence satisfies the requirements of a well-grounded claim. The supporting evidence in this case consists of records from Dr. Rosen and the veteran's statements. The letters from Dr. Rosen, while constituting competent medical evidence as required by Grottveit, fail to make any reference to a current left wrist disability or any link to an injury incurred in service. In the absence of proof of a present disability and a relationship with an injury incurred in service, the claim is not plausible and, therefore, not well-grounded. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141, 143-44 (1992). Finally, if the veteran were to rely solely on his own assertion of present disability attributable to an inservice injury, his own lay opinion would be insufficient evidence to support the claim. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992) (holding that lay persons are not competent to offer medical opinions). The submission of a well-grounded claim is "a prerequisite to the triggering of the duty-to-assist obligation under section 5107(a)." Godwin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 419, 425 (1991). Since the veteran has failed to submit a well-grounded claim the VA is not under a statutory duty to assist him in the development of evidence. Thus, the Board declines to schedule the veteran for an examination or to seek statements from co-workers who may have observed swelling in the wrist. The Board's decision, however, does not prevent the veteran from being examined by a private physician in an attempt to substantiate his claim. Since the Board's decision, regarding the claim of service connection for residuals of a left wrist injury, does not reach the merits of the claim, it is not deemed a final decision of the Board. Thus, the Board's action allows the veteran to begin, if he can, on a "clean slate". Grottveit at 93. Competent medical evidence tending to show that a current left wrist disability is related to an in-service injury would be sufficient to establish a well-grounded claim. ORDER The appeal of the issue of service connection for residuals of a left wrist injury is dismissed. THOMAS J. DANNAHER 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.