BVA9504210 DOCKET NO. 93-19 814 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Providence, Rhode Island THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a stomach condition. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C.A. Skow, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty from June 1976 to August 1980. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a June 1993 rating decision of the Providence, Rhode Island, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO). CONTENTION OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The appellant contends that he has a right knee condition and a stomach disorder as a result of injuries sustained from an automobile accident in September 1979 during service. 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 to service connection for a right knee condition and a stomach disorder is not well grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The appellant served on active from June 1976 to August 1980. 2. Service medical records reflect that the appellant sustained a closed head injury including multiple facial lacerations, contusions and abrasions of the extremities, and a left ankle sprain due to an automobile accident in September 1979; service medical records are negative for complaints, findings, or manifestations of a right knee condition and reflect an isolated instance of abdominal cramping which was diagnosed as a viral syndrome. 3. Post service medical records, including VA outpatient treatment reports and VA examinations, are negative for complaints, findings, or manifestations of a stomach disorder. 4. VA outpatient treatment report dated August 1992 reflects no abnormalities of the right knee on orthopedic examination. 5. There is no objective medical evidence of a present right knee condition or stomach disorder related to the automobile accident in September 1979 during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appellant has not submitted evidence of a well grounded claim for service connection of a right knee condition and a stomach disorder. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1131, 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The threshold question to be answered at the outset of the analysis of any case is whether the appellant's claim is well grounded; that is, whether it is plausible, meritorious on its own, or otherwise capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). If a particular claim is not well grounded, then the appeal fails and there is no further duty to assist in developing facts pertinent to the claim since such development would be futile. 38 U.S.C.A § 5107(a) (West 1991). For service connection to be granted, it is required that the facts, as shown by the evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in chronic disability was incurred in service, or, if pre-existing service, was aggravated therein. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1993). There are some disabilities where service connection may be presumed if the disorder is manifested to a degree of 10 percent disabling within one year of separation. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (1993). An appellant has, by statute, the duty to submit evidence that a claim is well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(a). Where such evidence is not submitted, the claim is not well grounded, and the initial burden placed on the appellant is not met. See Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609 (1992). Evidentiary assertions by the appellant must be accepted as true for the purposes of determining whether a claim is well grounded, except where the evidentiary assertion is inherently incredible. See King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. (1993). In this case, the appellant's evidentiary assertions as to the presence of a right knee condition and stomach disorder as secondary to injuries sustained during an automobile accident in September 1979 during service is inherently incredible when viewed in the context of the total record. The pertinent evidence before the Board includes service medical records and post service medical records. Service medical records reflect that the appellant sustained a closed head injury including multiple facial lacerations, contusions and abrasions of the extremities, and a left ankle sprain in September 1979 when he was involved in an automobile accident. However, service medical records are negative for complaints, findings, or manifestations of a right knee condition either prior to or after the automobile accident in September 1989. In addition, while an isolated instance of abdominal cramping was noted on a service treatment report dated June 1980, this condition was diagnosed as a viral syndrome and there were no subsequent complaints or findings of record. The post service medical records include VA outpatient treatment reports dated March 1992 to April 1994, and VA examination reports dated April 1986, August 1987, July 1989, and November 1992. The VA examination reports are negative for complaints, findings, or manifestations of either a right knee condition or a stomach disorder. VA outpatient treatment report dated August 1992 reflects, by history, that the appellant sustained trauma to the right knee during a September 1979 automobile accident which has resulted in locking or catching and pain in the right knee. The appellant reported the presence of a medial meniscus tear of the right knee as allegedly shown by a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test conducted in March 1990; he further reported that arthroscopic surgery was attempted in 1989, but that it was aborted due to pain. On orthopedic examination, clinical findings were negative for tenderness to palpation, axis deviation or progressive disease, and Lachman's sign. Full range of motion was noted, and a meniscal tear was not shown by an MRI study. The assessment was that the appellant's history was inconsistent with the most recent MRI reading. Subsequent to the orthopedic examination in August 1992, complaints for right knee pain and stiffness were found in the reports of neurological examination dated November 1992, psychiatric examination dated December 1992, and a social work follow-up dated March 1993. After reviewing the above, we find that there is no objective medical evidence of a present right knee condition or stomach disorder related to the automobile accident in September 1979 during service. In addition, even were the Board to assume that the appellant has a right knee condition, there is no objective medical evidence of record to relate the appellant's reported right knee condition to either the automobile accident in September 1979 or his period of service. We note that service medical records do not show that the appellant injured his right knee during the automobile accident in September 1979, and the first objective evidence for any complaint's of right knee pain was not until August 1992, more than ten years after the automobile accident in service. As noted above, to establish service-connection there needs to be a showing that the disability for which service connection is sought is in some way related to service. In the absence of a finding within the clinical evidence that shows either a present right knee or stomach disability during the appellant's period of service, or a causal relationship between the appellant's claimed present disorders and his period service, the Board concludes that the claim is not well grounded. See Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136 (1994). While the Board acknowledges the appellant's submissions, with respect to a relationship between his claimed right knee and stomach disorders and the automobile accident during service, he lacks medical expertise to enter a judgment regarding a medical relationship between the alleged disorders and the incident in service. The Board may not accept unsupported lay speculation with regard to medical issues. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 482 (1992). Furthermore, lay assertions of medical causation cannot constitute evidence to render a claim well grounded. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). Where there is no medical evidence of the claimed disorders during service, where there is no medical evidence linking the claimed disorders to service or an in-service event, or where the disorders are not currently demonstrated, the claim is not well grounded. See Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141 (1992); Fields v. Derwinski, 90-933 (U.S. Vet. App. Dec. 2, 1991) (emphasis added). Accordingly, in view of the above, the undersigned concludes that evidence sufficient to establish that the claim to service- connection for a right knee condition and a stomach disorder is well grounded has not been presented. ORDER Having found the claim not well grounded, the appeal of service- connection for a right knee condition and a stomach disorder is dismissed and the VARO rating decision of June 1993 from which this appeal arose is vacated. C.P. RUSSELL 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.