Citation Nr: 0001352 Decision Date: 01/14/00 Archive Date: 01/27/00 DOCKET NO. 95-33 603 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for left knee disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Thomas H. O'Shay, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from September 1946 to January 1948. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 1995 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Chicago, Illinois. This case was remanded by the Board in December 1997 for further development; it was returned to the Board in September 1999. FINDING OF FACT The claims for service connection for left knee and bilateral foot disabilities are not plausible. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claims for service connection for left knee and bilateral foot disabilities are not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Board initially notes that the veteran, through his representative, has alleged that his service medical records are incomplete, contending that he was treated on an outpatient basis for several months at the Sapporo Hokkaido, Japan aid station for injuries of his feet and left knee, but that records of this treatment are not on file. In its December 1997 remand, the Board requested that the RO contact the veteran and request that he provide information pertaining to the specific unit(s) to which he was assigned during his active service in Japan. The record reflects that the RO requested that the veteran provide the above information in January 1998 and September 1998, but that the veteran failed to respond. In October 1998 the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), responding to a request by the RO for all morning and sick reports for the period from December 1946 to December 1947 for the 187th Paraglide Infantry, attached to the 11th Airborne Division of the Army, indicated that greater specificity with respect to the dates of the veteran's treatment in service was required; the NPRC provided the RO with an NA Form 13055. The RO thereafter provided the veteran in November 1998 and January 1999 with an NA Form 13055, requested that he complete and return the form, and explained why his cooperation was necessary. The record reflects that the veteran failed to respond. In light of the above, as the veteran has persistently failed to cooperate with VA's efforts to locate any additional service medical records, the Board concludes that no further assistance to the veteran is required. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1990). Applicable law provides that service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1999). Service incurrence of arthritis during wartime service may be presumed if it is manifested to a compensable degree within one year of the veteran's discharge from service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (1999). However, as a preliminary matter, the Board must determine whether the veteran has submitted evidence of well-grounded claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). If he has not, his claims must fail, and VA is not obligated to assist the veteran in their development. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91 (1993); Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609 (1992). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has stated repeatedly that 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) unequivocally places an initial burden on a claimant to produce evidence that a claim is well grounded. See Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 136 (1994); Grottveit at 92; Tirpak at 610-11. A well-grounded claim is a plausible claim, that is, a claim which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 81 (1990). The Court has stated that the quality and quantity of evidence required to meet this statutory burden depends upon the issue presented by the claim. Grottveit at 92-93. Where a determinative issue involves medical causation or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible or possible is required. Id. Further, in order for a direct service connection claim to be considered plausible, and therefore well grounded, there must be evidence of both a current disability and evidence of relationship between that disability and an injury or disease incurred in service or some other manifestation of the disability during service. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 548 (1992). A claim will also be well grounded if the condition is observed during service or any applicable presumption period, continuity of symptomatology is demonstrated thereafter, and competent evidence relates the present condition to that symptomatology. Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488 (1997). Service medical records show that the veteran sustained a sprain to the lateral collateral ligament of his left knee in October 1946 while on a physical training course. The medical records are thereafter negative for any evidence of left knee disability. The service medical records are entirely negative for evidence of disability of either foot. There is no medical evidence of disability of the left knee or either foot prior to March 1995. VA treatment records for March 1995 to July 1997 document the veteran's contention that he sustained a left knee injury from a parachute jump, and show treatment for neuromas of both feet and for traumatic arthritis and tendinitis of the left knee. The records do not further address the etiology of the veteran's left knee or bilateral foot disability. The veteran was afforded VA examinations in August 1995, at which time he was found to exhibit mild degenerative changes in his left knee as well as pain and fatigue in both feet. The examiners notably did not address the etiology of any left knee or bilateral foot disability. The veteran was afforded a hearing before a hearing officer at the St. Louis, Missouri RO in April 1996, at which time he presented testimony with respect to injuries sustained in a parachute jump. He testified that he was thereafter treated in Sapporo, Japan for left knee problems, and he averred that he continued to have left knee problems after service. Although the veteran was treated in service on one occasion for a left knee sprain, the remainder of his service medical records are negative for evidence of left knee disability, and there is no evidence of foot disability in service medical records. While the veteran, through his representative, has alleged that his service medical records are incomplete, as noted previously, he failed to cooperate with VA in efforts to locate any additional service medical records. In any event, there is no postservice medical evidence of any foot disability or left knee disability for decades after service and no medical evidence linking any foot or left knee disability to service. Although VA treatment reports record the veteran's essential contention that his left knee disability originated in service, the etiology of the left knee disability was not further addressed by the treating examiner. Evidence which is simply unenhanced information recorded by a medical examiner does not constitute competent medical evidence sufficient to well ground a claim. LeShore v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 406, 409 (1995). In the instant case, the only evidence supportive of an etiological relationship between the veteran's left knee or bilateral foot disability and his period of service consists of the lay assertions of the veteran. As the Court held in Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992), lay persons are not competent to offer medical opinions, so the assertions of lay persons concerning medical diagnosis or causation cannot constitute evidence of a well-grounded claim. Moreover, while the veteran is competent to testify as to his symptoms during and after service, he is not competent to relate his present condition to those symptoms. See Savage, 10 Vet. App. 488 (1997). In light of these circumstances, the Board must conclude that the veteran's claims are not well grounded. The Board views its foregoing discussion as sufficient to inform the veteran of the elements necessary to complete his application to reopen his claims for service connection for left knee disability and bilateral foot disability. Graves v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 522, 524 (1996). ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left knee disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot disability is denied. SHANE A. DURKIN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals