Citation Nr: 0003921 Decision Date: 02/15/00 Archive Date: 02/23/00 DOCKET NO. 97-33 219 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Oakland, California THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. R. McCormack, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active naval service from May 1969 to April 1971. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Oakland Regional Office (RO) August 1997 rating decision which denied, inter alia, service connection for a right eye disability and a skin disorder, and deferred adjudication of a claim of service connection for depression. The veteran was notified of this decision in a September 1997 letter from the RO. By April 1998 rating decision, the RO denied the veteran's claim of service connection for depression. By the October 1998 hearing, the veteran filed a notice of disagreement with regard to this issue, and a statement of the case was issued in May 1999. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105. However, as he did not file a substantive appeal with regard to this issue, it is not in appellate status. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202 (1999). Thus, the only issues on appeal are as stated on the title page of this decision. In his November 1997 substantive appeal, the veteran notified the RO that he wished to appear personally at a hearing at the RO before a traveling Member of the Board. However, by VA Form 21-4138 received in October 1998, he indicated that no longer wished to be scheduled for such a hearing. The Board will proceed below in accordance with the veteran's specified wishes. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e) (1999). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. No competent medical evidence has been presented to link the veteran's right eye disability to his period of service or any incident therein. 2. No competent medical evidence has been presented to link the veteran's skin disorder to his period of service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The veteran has not submitted a well-grounded claim of entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). 2. The veteran has not submitted a well-grounded claim of entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The veteran contends that his right eye disability resulted from being hit in the face with a refrigerator door during his period of service; thus, he argues that service connection is warranted for a right eye disability. He also contends that he has a skin disorder which began in service, and that service connection is warranted for a skin disorder. Before reaching the merits of the veteran's claims, the threshold question which must be resolved is whether he has presented evidence that his claims of service connection are well grounded. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 81 (1990). A well-grounded claim is a plausible claim that is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. Id. at 81. The appellant must submit evidence in support of his claim that would justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is plausible. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991); Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609, 611 (1992). In order for a claim to be well grounded, there must be competent evidence of 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 inservice disease or injury and the current disability (medical evidence). See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). Where the determinant issue involves a question of medical causation or medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible or possible is required to establish a well-grounded claim. Lay assertions of medical causation cannot constitute evidence sufficient to render a claim well grounded under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91, 93 (1993). Furthermore, if there is no showing of the current existence of the disability, the claim is not well grounded. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2. Vet. App. 141 (1992). Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from chronic disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110. Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1999). For a showing of chronic disease in service there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word "chronic." Continuity of symptomatology is required where the condition noted during service is not, in fact, shown to be chronic or where the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1999). I. Right Eye Disability A review of the veteran's service medical records discloses that, at the time of his January 1969 service entrance medical examination, a clinical evaluation of his right eye revealed normal findings and 20/20 right eye vision was noted. In the accompanying Report of Medical History, he indicated that he had not had any right eye trouble, and that he had not worn glasses or contact lenses. A June 1970 record shows that he was hit in the left eye with a door; as an aside, he is now service-connected for a left eye condition. There were no reports or findings of any injury relative to his right eye. His April 1971 service separation medical examination shows that a clinical evaluation of his right eye revealed normal findings, and 20/20 vision was recorded as to his right eye. VA outpatient treatment records, dated from June 1977 to December 1998, do not show that the veteran was treated for right eye disability. Private medical records, dated from July 1981 to March 1996, do not show that the veteran complained or was treated for right eye disability. On VA medical examination in June 1997, the veteran was diagnosed as having poorly controlled diabetes with evidence of retinopathy, an early cataract, hypertensive vascular changes and myopic astigmatism. At his October 1998 hearing, the veteran testified that he had a right eye disability which resulted from being hit in the face with a refrigerator door during service. He also testified that his right eye vision was blurry and required him to wear glasses. On the basis of the foregoing evidence, the Board finds that the veteran has not presented evidence of a well-grounded claim of service connection for a right eye disability. There is no competent medical evidence of record establishing that his right eye disability is of service origin. In particular, while his service medical records show that he was hit in the face with a door in 1970, they are totally devoid of any report or clinical finding that he injured his right eye or that he incurred a chronic right eye disability. Moreover, his right eye was found to be normal with 20/20 vision at the time of his service separation examination. Likewise, post-service VA outpatient treatment and private medical records fail to disclose any report or finding of a right eye disability of in-service origin. Although a June 1997 VA examination report shows that the veteran has retinopathy, an early cataract, hypertensive vascular changes and myopic astigmatism, that report fails to establish a causal relationship between the disabilities and service or any incident therein. Thus, as there is no competent medical evidence of record which establishes that the veteran has right eye disability of service origin, his claim of service connection for a right eye disability is not well grounded. Caluza, 7 Vet. App. at 506. II. Skin Disorder The veteran's service medical records show a clinical evaluation of his skin revealed normal findings on January 1969 service entrance medical examination. In the accompanying Report of Medical History, he indicated that he had not had any skin disease. His April 1971 service separation medical examination also shows that a normal clinical evaluation of his skin. VA outpatient treatment records, from June 1977 to December 1998, show that an April 1985 examination of the veteran's chest revealed brown macules. It was noted that he had a rash on his chest for a few years. The assessment was post- inflammatory hyperpigmentation. A May 1995 record shows that he reported that he had rashes which were caused by his use of chemicals. In June 1997, he was seen with complaints of a blistering skin rash on his fingers. It was noted that his complaints appeared to be service-connected. Examination revealed that he had a very inconspicuous blistering rash on the ring finger of his left hand. A July 1997 record shows the assessment of dyshidrosis and folliculitis of the legs and hands. Private medical records, dated from July 1981 to March 1996, show that the veteran was assessed as having dermatitis on occasion. They also include an October 1984 phone message wherein it was noted that the veteran reported that "Agent Orange" had again broken out on his left side. At his October 1998 hearing, the veteran testified that he had a skin disorder which had its onset during his period of service. He also testified that he was treated for a skin disorder during service. Based on the foregoing, the veteran has not presented evidence of a well-grounded claim of service connection for a skin disorder. There is no competent medical evidence of record establishing that his skin disorder is of service origin. Specifically, his service medical records show no report or clinical finding of a skin disorder. Rather, his skin was clinically shown to be normal at the time of his service separation examination. In addition, although post- service VA and private medical records show that he was assessed as having various skin disorders on occasion years after service, these records do not establish any causal link or nexus between the skin disorders and his period of service. Rather, an April 1985 VA record shows that he had a rash on his chest for the previous few years. A May 1995 VA record shows that he reported his rashes were caused by his using chemicals. The Board is aware that VA records include a June 1997 notation that the veteran's complaints of a skin rash appeared to be service-connected. The Board is also aware that the private medical records include an October 1984 phone message wherein it was noted that the veteran reported that "Agent Orange" had again broken out on his left side. However, these notations appears to simply reflect his own recitation of complaints, rather than a medical determination. A bare transcription of a lay history is not transformed into "competent medical evidence" merely because the transcriber happens to be a medical professional. LeShore v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 406 (1995) Thus, as there is no competent medical evidence of record which establishes that the veteran's skin disorder is of service origin, his claim of service connection for a skin disorder may not be viewed as well grounded. Caluza, 7 Vet. App. at 506. III. Additional Matters The Board has carefully considered the veteran's testimony regarding the etiology of his right eye disability and skin disorder. However, as a layman, he is not qualified to render such an opinion as to a medical diagnosis, etiology or causation. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992). In denying the veteran's claims of service connection for a right eye disability and a skin disorder, the Board has considered the matter of resolution of the benefit of the doubt. However, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is only applicable when a claim is well grounded. Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Such is not the case where there is no competent evidence of record establishing a causal connection between a right eye disability and the veteran's period of service, or a skin disorder and his period of service. ORDER Service connection for a right eye disability is denied. Service connection for a skin disorder is denied. J. F. Gough Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals