Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of § 3.303(b) regarding the use of or need for continuity of symptomatology as to a service-connection claim and what the relationship of that concept is to the need for medical evidence of a nexus between a current medical condition and the veteran’s service. Until those issues are resolved in Savage, the current opinion should be withheld. In Caluza, the Court reiterated that medical evidence of nexus to service was generally required in order to well ground a service-connection claim. Caluza, supra (citing Grottveit, supra). As the Secretary’s motion indicates, the Court’s opinion in Smith will add confusion to the Court’s easelaw on the question of the nature and quality of the evidence needed to well ground a claim. Compare Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 610-11 (1992) (<HOLDING>), and Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14, 16-17 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that hearing officer had no obligation under 38 cfr  3103c2 to advise appellant as to physicians statement because that statement would not have helped prove the claim  that is that statement would not have provided a nexus with the veterans service (B) recognizing cause of action for wrongful death (C) holding physician statement that veterans death may or may not have been averted if medical personnel had been able to intubate him a procedure complicated by his serviceconnected injuries insufficient to well ground claim for service connection for veterans cause of death (D) holding a wrongful death action may not be maintained for the death of an unborn child (E) holding that action for wrongful death may generally not be maintained where death was selfinflicted
Output (English): holding that hearing officer had no obligation under 38 cfr  3103c2 to advise appellant as to physicians statement because that statement would not have helped prove the claim  that is that statement would not have provided a nexus with the veterans service