Source: https://va-claim.com/2017/11/10/denial-of-service-connection-for-a-genitourinary-disorder-and-denied-of-service-connection-for-colon-cancer-is-affirmed-case-no-16-2729/?shared=email&msg=fail
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:32:34+00:00

Document:
SCHOELEN, Judge: The appellant, Donald Martin, through counsel, appeals a June 15, 2016, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that denied service connection for a genitourinary disorder, and denied service connection for colon cancer. Record of Proceedings (R.) at 2-11. This appeal is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a). Single-judge disposition is appropriate. See Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990). For the following reasons, the Court will affirm the Board’s decision.
The appellant served on active duty in the U.S. Army from August 1957 to June 1960 and from August 1960 to October 1977. R. at 132, 290. In March 1971, the appellant complained of diarrhea and watery bowel movements. R. at 1003. In June 2010, the appellant submitted a claim for frequent urination, an enlarged prostate, and an enlarged kidney. R. at 925. In February 2010, the RO requested the appellant’s service and postservice military records. R. at 1101-06. In August 2010, VA notified the appellant that the RO was unable to obtain his postservice medical records dated from November 1977 to December 2003. R. at 915-17. The letter also stated that a request for records from Dewitt Army Community Hospital in Fort Belvoir was returned with a response stating that the hospital did not have the appellant’s records for that period. Id. at 915.
were no other records to submit or obtain. Id.
and colon cancer, to include as due to in-service herbicide exposure. R. at 2-11. This appeal followed.
Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet.App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table).
A. Hearing Officer’s Duties 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2) provides that “[i]t is the responsibility of the VA employee or employees conducting the hearings to explain fully the issues and suggest the submission of evidence which the claimant may have overlooked and which would be of advantage to the claimant’s position.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2) (2017); see also Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 488, 492 (2010) (stating that the regulation imposes “two distinct duties” on hearing officers: the duty to fully explain the issues and the duty to suggest that a claimant submit evidence that may have been overlooked). This provision applies to hearings both before the regional office (RO) and the Board. Procopio v. Shinseki, 26 Vet.App. 76, 79-81 (2012). The appellant argues that the November 2014 Board member erred by not suggesting further evidence that was needed at the hearing. Appellant’s Brief (Br.) at 5-6. The Court finds this argument unavailing. In this case, the record demonstrates that the Board member stated that the issue on appeal was service connection for residuals of prostate cancer and noted that further attempts to obtain the appellant’s medical records would be made. R. at 1175, 1191. However, even assuming the Board member had failed in his duty to suggest further evidence to submit, the appellant has not demonstrated that he was unaware of what was needed to substantiate his claim.
In his opening statement, the appellant’s representative acknowledged that the appellant’s current disability had not been attributed back to his time in service and stated that the appellant hoped that his testimony would provide any missing or unknown information that had previously prevented service connection. R. at 1176.
Additionally, the hearing focused on the lack of records showing any diagnosis or treatment, and the Board member stated that she was going to ask for more records before making her decision. Given this dialogue, the appellant presumably knew what was required to substantiate his claim. Therefore, the Court holds that even assuming the Board member failed to comply with her regulatory duty to suggest the submission of evidence, the appellant has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the error. See Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 103, 121 (2005) that no prejudice exists when a claimant has actual knowledge of the evidence required), rev’d on other grounds, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Hilkert v. West, 12 Vet.App. 145, 151 (1999) (en banc) (holding that the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal). (noting 1 The appellant had not yet filed his claim for colon cancer at the time of the hearing.
opinion is adequate is a finding of fact, which this Court reviews under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard.” D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 97, 104 (2008); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 52 (1990).
The appellant next argues that the May 2015 VA examination and March 2016 addendum are inadequate. Appellant’s Br. at 6-12. Specifically, the appellant contends that the examiner did not review the appellant’s claims file (C-file) or note the appellant’s complaints of watery and loose bowel movements in 1971, which led to “erroneous factual determinations.” Id. at 10. The Secretary responds that although the examiner did not review the paper C-file, the examiner reviewed the service treatment records, examinations, VA treatment records, and civilian treatment records “presumably through electronic sources.” Secretary’s Br. at 13-15. The Board here assigned great probative weight to these opinions because the examiner reviewed the medical records, examined the appellant, addressed the appellant’s assertion as to the origin of the disability, and provided a sufficient rationale for the conclusion reached based on the record and the examination findings. R. at 7.
records, the appellant’s enlistment and separation examinations, and Veterans Health Administration medical records. R. at 1134. The appellant does not point to any specific records that the examiner did not review, nor does he demonstrate how he was prejudiced. See NievesRodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 295, 301 (2008).
As to the appellant’s argument that the examiner made erroneous factual determinations and failed to assist the appellant in developing his claim because the examiner did not note his 1971 complaints of watery and loose bowel movements, this argument must fail. The appellant does not assert what erroneous determination the examiner made or establish how this lack of notation has prejudiced his claim. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 406 (2009) (appellant has burden of demonstrating prejudice). Therefore, the Court finds the appellant’s arguments unfounded and does not find clear error in the Board’s determination that the May 2015 examination and March 2016 addendum were adequate.
reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard of review. Hyatt v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 390, 395 (2007). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court, after reviewing the entire evidence, “is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); see also Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 52.
an August 2015 phone call with a VA representative, the appellant stated that VA already had his records from Fort Belvoir and that he was not treated there after October 2013. R. at 328. Without more, the Court cannot discern how the Board failed in its duty to assist in obtaining records that the appellant previously stated were already in VA’s possession. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190, 192-93 (1990) (duty to assist is not a one-way street).
The Board is required to include in its decision a written statement of the reasons or bases for its findings and conclusions on all material issues of fact and law. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 527(1995). The statement must be adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board’s decision, as well as to facilitate informed review in this Court. See id.; Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 56-57. To comply with this requirement, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence it finds persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. See Caluza, 7 Vet.App. at 506; Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 39-40 (1994).
The appellant argues that the Board did not provide adequate reasons or bases for denying his two claims. Appellant’s Br. at 17-27. He contends that the Board had a heightened duty to provide a well-reasoned basis for its decision because of his missing medical records. Id. The appellant further argues that the Board improperly denied benefits based on the lack of evidence and that the Board did not properly assess the weight and credibility of the evidence. Id. at 19, 21.
The appellant is correct that where service medical records are presumed destroyed, the Board’s obligation to explain its findings and conclusions is heightened. See Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 46, 51 (1996); see also Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 362 (2005). However, the appellant’s argument is based on an inaccurate factual premise. In this case, the appellant’s records are a part of the record. It is the appellant’s postservice records from 1977 to 2003 that VA was unable to obtain. R. at 915. Therefore, the appellant fails to establish error. See Hilkert, 12 Vet.App. at 151.
acknowledged the appellant’s lay statements and stated that he was not competent to provide a probative opinion on a complex medical matter such as the etiological relationship between his current disability and service. R. at 8.
With regard to the appellant’s colon cancer claim, the Board noted that review of service and postservice records does not show a diagnosis of colon cancer at any point during the appeal period. Id. The Board then explained that the evidence in the record weighed against a finding that the appellant had a diagnosis for colon cancer. R. at 9. The Court finds the Board’s reasons or bases for denying both of the appellant’s claims adequate to enable the appellant to understand the precise basis for its decision and adequate to facilitate review in this Court. See Allday, 7 Vet.App. at 527.
clearly erroneous). The appellant has not established that the Board’s decision was clearly erroneous in any manner.
knowledge to opine as to the matter. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kerr v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 350, 353 (1993); Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221, 225 (1991) (“Lay hypothesizing . . . serves no constructive purpose and cannot be considered by the Court.”).
After consideration of the appellant’s and the Secretary’s pleadings, and a review of the record, the Board’s June 15, 2016, decision is AFFIRMED.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7104
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.