Citation Nr: 0000088 Decision Date: 01/04/00 Archive Date: 12/28/01 DOCKET NO. 98-08 616 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in No. Little Rock, Arkansas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of a crush injury to the left wrist. 2. Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of an injury to the left second finger. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD V. Marletta, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from December 1966 to October 1968. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a rating decision rendered in August 1997 by the No. Little Rock, Arkansas, (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran currently has severe degenerative arthritis in his left wrist. 2. It is plausible that the veteran incurred a crush injury to his left wrist while in-service. 3. There is no competent medical evidence of a nexus between the veteran's current left wrist disability and any in- service injury. 4. A current disability involving the veteran's left second finger is not shown. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim of entitlement to service connection for the residuals from a left wrist injury and for the residuals from a left second finger injury is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995), aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (table). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION I. Well Grounded Claims - In General In Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied sub nom. Epps v. West, 118 S. Ct. 2348 (1998), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that, under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a), the VA has a duty to assist only those claimants who have established well grounded (i.e., plausible) claims. More recently, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court or CAVC) issued a decision holding that VA cannot assist a claimant in developing a claim that is not well grounded. Morton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 477 (July 14, 1999), req. for en banc consideration by a judge denied, No. 96-1517 (U.S. Vet. App. July 28, 1999) (per curiam). Once a claimant has submitted evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that a claim is well grounded, the claimant's initial burden has been met, and VA is obligated under 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a) to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim. Accordingly, the threshold question that must be resolved in this appeal is whether the appellant has presented evidence that the claim is well grounded; that is, that the claim is plausible. In order for a claim to be well grounded, there must be (1) a medical diagnosis of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between an in-service injury or disease and the current disability. Epps, 126 F.3d at 1468; Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (table). Where the determinative issue involves medical causation or etiology, or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is "plausible" or "possible" is required. Epps, 126 F.3d at 1468. Further, in determining whether a claim is well grounded, the supporting evidence is presumed to be true and is not subject to weighing. King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19, 21 (1993). II. Entitlement to Service Connection for the Residuals of a Crush Injury to the Left Wrist In the present case, the veteran submitted to a Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC) examination in July 1997, the report of which clearly states that the veteran currently has severe degenerative arthritis in his left wrist. Thus the Board finds there is sufficient evidence of a current disability and the first element of a well grounded claim with respect to this issue has been satisfied. With respect to the second requirement of a well grounded claim - the in-service occurrence or aggravation of an injury - the veteran claims that he incurred a crush injury to his left wrist while serving aboard the U.S.S. Preble sometime during the time period 1967-1968. Notably, the veteran's service medical records do not show an in-service injury to his left wrist. Further, the veteran's September 1968 separation examination report does not indicate a wrist injury and rates his upper extremities as "normal." At his hearing before the Travel Board, the veteran, in explaining the omission of a wrist injury in his service medical records, noted that the U.S.S. Preble lacked x-ray equipment and that while there was a sickbay, a doctor was not on duty at the time of his injury and that he was therefore treated by a petty officer. For purposes of making a well grounded determination only, the Board accepts as plausible the veteran's lay testimony that he incurred an in-service wrist injury aboard the U.S.S. Preble and therefore finds that the second element of a well grounded claim has been satisfied. See King, supra. As stated above, the third element of a well grounded claim requires competent medical evidence linking a current disability with the in-service occurrence of an injury or disease. Unfortunately for the veteran, there is no competent evidence in this case that there exists a nexus between the degenerative arthritis currently diagnosed in his left wrist and any in-service injury. At his hearing before the Travel Board, the veteran could not recall any dialogue between him and his doctors that linked his in-service crush injury with his current arthritis condition. Transcript of Hearing at pp. 10-11. Further, while the medical history in the July 1997 VAMC examination report recites the veteran's account of his in-service injury, it does not contain any indication of a linkage between such injury and the veteran's degenerative arthritis in his left wrist. In fact, the VAMC radiology report shows that the veteran suffers from degenerative arthritis in his wrists bilaterally, a finding that would seem to negate any inference that the arthritis in the veteran's left wrist was necessarily caused by some extraordinary trauma. Absent any competent medical evidence establishing a nexus between the veteran's current disability and an in-service injury, the Board must find that his claim is not well grounded. See Caluza, supra. III. Entitlement to Service Connection for Residuals of an Injury to the Left Second Finger The veteran's service medical records support his claim that he injured his left second finger while in-service. An April 1969 sick call treatment record entry indicates that he incurred a contusion on the second finger of his left hand while on the U.S.S. Preble and was given a splint therefor. However, neither the VAMC examination report nor any other medical record shows a current disability involving the veteran's left second finger. Absent medical evidence of a current disability, the Board must find that the first Caluza requirement is not satisfied and that therefore the veteran's claim with respect to this issue is not well grounded. IV. Conclusion In view of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for residuals of a crush injury to his left wrist and for entitlement to service connection for residuals of an injury to his left second finger is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). The Board must again point out that its duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim, as stipulated in 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a), does not arise until a claim is shown to be well grounded. The Board also notes that the veteran is free to submit new and material evidence, and reopen his claim for service connection, at any time. ORDER A claim for entitlement to service connection for residuals of a crush injury to the veteran's left wrist and for entitlement to service connection for residuals of an injury to his left second finger is not well grounded, and is accordingly denied. M. W. GREENSTREET Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals