BVA9501467 DOCKET NO. 93-08 859 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a back disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Hilary L. Goodman, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from January 1942 to October 1945. This appeal arises from a February 1992 rating decision which denied service connection for a back disability. The veteran contends that he sustained a back injury as the result of a land mine explosion in April 1945. He claims that he has had back problems ever since then. Records of a Surgeon General Office (SGO) hospital extract confirm that the veteran was injured as the result of a land mine in April 1945. His claim that the injuries included injury to his back are consistent with the circumstances and must be accepted as sufficient proof of the injury. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d). However, no evidence has been submitted to show that the back injury sustained as the result of the land mine explosion in April 1945 resulted in chronic disability. The veteran has submitted no evidence showing continuity of symptoma- tology, the existence of current back disability, or other evidence linking any current back disability to an incident of service. The threshold question is whether the veteran has presented evidence of a well-grounded claim. A well-grounded claim is one that is plausible, that is, one that is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. If a claimant has not presented a well-grounded claim, his appeal must fail. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136 (1994); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 82 (1990). Under the law, a claim for benefits need not be conclusive, but it must be accompanied by evidence. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 604 (1992). Where the determinative issue is one of medical causation or diagnosis, only those with specialized medical knowledge, training, or experience are competent to provide evidence on the issue. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992). The assertions of a lay party on matters of medical causation, diagnosis, or date of inception of a disability are not sufficient to make a claim well grounded. Moray v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 511 (1993). However, the veteran is able to present competent evidence as to continuity of symptomatology, and given the fact that an April 1945 back injury has been established, a showing of continuity of symptomatology would render the claim well grounded. Accordingly, his claims may be "capable of substantiation" on this basis. VA has an obligation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) to advise the appellant of the evidence necessary to complete his application for benefits. In this case, after the originating agency notified the veteran in a letter dated in October 1991 that evi- dence necessary to complete the application included evidence that the back disability has existed continuously from the date of his discharge to the present time, the veteran responded that he had received treatment for the back injury shortly after service in Detroit by Dr. Cooper and that in 1976 an X-ray examination revealed a cracked bone from an old injury. The veteran's representative notes that no effort was made to obtain these treatment records and has requested that an examination be conducted to determine the nature and extent of the veteran's back disability. Thus, even though the veteran's claim may not appear to be well grounded at this juncture, once the development below is completed, the record must again be reviewed to determine whether his claim is ultimately well grounded. If the claim is not well grounded, the RO and the Board would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. Grivois. Accordingly, the veteran is advised that, unless the development directed herein provides evidence establishing that his claim is well grounded, his appeal must fail. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) finds that the actions ordered below are warranted. Accordingly, the claim is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The originating agency should request from the veteran a comprehensive statement containing as much detail as possible regarding the back problems he has experienced since his release from service. The veteran should identify all sources of medical treatment received for the back problems, and furnish signed authorizations for release to the VA of private medical records in connection with each non-VA medical source he identifies. The originating agency should request copies of all relevant treatment records, including records from Dr. Cooper. All records obtained should be associated with the veteran's claims file. 2. When the above development has been completed, the originating agency should determine whether or not the veteran has presented a well-grounded claim, keeping in mind that the veteran's statement alone may be sufficient to establish continuity of symptomatology. If the veteran provides sufficient details to establish continuity of symptomatology, or if other evidence establishing the existence of a well- grounded claim is received, the veteran should be accorded an examination by an orthopedist. The express purpose of this examination is to identify the current residuals of the reported back injury and evaluate their severity. The examiner should be given the claims folder prior to the examination to allow for a complete review of pertinent records contained therein. The examiner should be instructed to set forth the history of symptoms as reported by the veteran as well as all pertinent findings. The examiner should express an opinion as to the etiology of any current back disorder. 3. Upon completion of the above, the originating agency should again review the claim for service connection for a back disability. If any determination made is unfavorable to the veteran, a supplemental statement of the case which sets forth the evidence received since the statement of the case should be issued to the veteran and his representative. The veteran and his representative should be given the applicable period of time in which to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain clarifying medical information and ensure all due process. No action is required of the veteran until he receives further notice. GARY L. GICK 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 deter- mination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1993).