Citation Nr: 1010807 Decision Date: 03/23/10 Archive Date: 03/31/10 DOCKET NO. 06-02 762 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Huntington, West Virginia THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for mitral valve prolapse. 2. Entitlement to service connection for loss of vision in the left eye. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Barstow, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active military service from March 1980 to February 1981. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a December 2004 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Huntington, West Virginia. The Board notes that the Veteran requested and was scheduled for a Travel Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge in March 2008, but did not appear for the hearing. Accordingly, the Board considers the Veteran's request for a hearing to be withdrawn and will proceed to adjudicate the case based on the evidence of record. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (d), (e) (2009). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There is no current evidence of mitral valve prolapse related to service. 2. There is no current evidence of loss of vision in the left eye related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Mitral valve prolapse was not incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1131, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2009). 2. Loss of vision in the left eye was not incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1131, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2009). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. The Merits of the Claims The Veteran contends that she had a mitral valve prolapse in approximately January 1981, and was evaluated for a small blood clot to her left ocular artery, presumably due to the mitral valve prolapse, post-service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Generally, service connection requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability, (2) medical evidence, or in certain circumstances lay testimony, of in- service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). The Veteran's service treatment records are of record and contain no treatment for, or diagnosis of, any mitral valve prolapse or loss of vision in the left eye. A report of medical history dated in September 1979 indicates that the Veteran checked both "yes" and "no" to having eye trouble; there is no indication as to what kind of trouble she had. However, she did report that she had vision in both eyes. A record dated in October 1979 indicates that the Veteran had blurred distance vision. The Veteran has contended that she was treated at Brooke Army Medical Center during service for her mitral valve prolapse, and at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as a dependant of her ex-husband some months after her discharge from service. She has also indicated that because she married several times, her service treatment records and post-service treatment records in the year after her discharge that show the mitral valve prolapse and loss of vision in her left eye might be located under different last names. A report from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) dated in March 2007 indicates that there were no additional records for the Veteran beyond what was already contained in the claims file. There is no post-service medical evidence showing treatment for, or diagnosis of, any mitral valve prolapse or loss of vision in the left eye. In this regard, the Veteran has provided the names of two private physicians for the RO to obtain treatment records from. A request for records from A.B., M.D. dated in August 2004 was returned to the RO with no records. The Veteran was apprised in a letter dated in August 2004 that the request from Dr. A.B. was returned with no records. Two requests to S.G., M.D. dated in August 2004 and November 2004 yielded no responses. The Veteran was notified in the rating decision on appeal that no response was received from Dr. S.G. Here, there is no evidence of a current disability or of any in-service event, injury, or disease. There are no medical records at all to indicate that the Veteran currently has a mitral valve prolapse or any loss of vision in the left eye. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that interpretation of section 1131 of the statute as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary). See also McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007) (noting that the requirement of a current disability is satisfied when the claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim and that a claimant may be granted service connection even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary's adjudication of the claim). In other words, the evidence must show that the Veteran currently has the disability for which benefits are being claimed or had such a disability at any time since in the record. Significantly, there is no competent medical evidence of any mitral valve prolapse or loss of vision in the left eye in the record at all. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran's service treatment records show a complaint of blurred vision and that she checked both "yes" and "no" to having eye problems. However, the records do not show a loss of vision in her left eye, or any specific disability. Moreover, the records related to the Veteran's vision in service all pre-date the contended mitral valve prolapse; the Veteran indicated that her loss of vision followed the mitral valve prolapse. Regarding the Veteran's contention that her service treatment records and post-service treatment records a year after her discharge may be located under different last names, the Board notes that in a statement received in August 2004 the Veteran indicated that she was married three times post- service beginning in May 1986. Additionally, she indicated that she was married from 1980 to 1983, during which time she was in service and the year following her discharge from service. Therefore, since the Veteran had the same married last name throughout service and the year after her discharge, the Board finds it unlikely that in-service and post-service treatment records the year following her discharge would be found under her other post-service last names that did not change until at least 1983. Additionally, the Board notes that service treatment records prior to her marriage in 1980 show her maiden name. Even when the RO requested medical records and used the Veteran's current last name and married last name in service, the treatment records received from the NPRC included records with her maiden name. Therefore, the Board finds that there is little to support the Veteran's assertion that there are service treatment records under different names that are not already apart of the claims file. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's belief that she has mitral valve prolapse and loss of vision in the left eye as a result of her military service. Additionally, the Board notes that the Veteran's DD 214 indicates that she was a patient care specialist and medical specialist, and that she has an advanced degree in public health. Therefore, as a medical professional, she is competent to say that she has mitral valve prolapse and loss of vision in the left eye as a result of her military service. See Edenfield v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 384, 388 (1995); Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 74 (1995); Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91, 93 (1993); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494 (1992). However, although the Veteran is competent, the Board is persuaded by the complete lack of objective medical record documentation showing current disabilities or that she had mitral valve prolapse and loss of vision in the left eye during service. In this regard, requests to doctors that the Veteran claimed treated her returned no results and none of her service treatment records obtained from the NPRC show the in-service incurrence of mitral valve prolapse and loss of vision in the left eye. In sum, there is no objective medical evidence showing current disabilities, or the in-service incurrence of any event, injury, or disease. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claims, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and the Veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection is denied. See 38 U.S.C.A § 5107. II. The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) describes VA's duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2009); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a) (2009). Upon receipt of a complete or substantially complete application for benefits, VA is required to notify the claimant and his representative of any information, and any medical or lay evidence, that is necessary to substantiate the claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). The VCAA notice must inform the claimant of any information and evidence not of record (1) that is necessary to substantiate the claims; (2) that VA will seek to provide; and (3) that the claimant is expected to provide. VCAA notice should be provided to a claimant before the initial unfavorable agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on a claim. Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004). The Board notes that the Veteran was apprised of VA's duties to both notify and assist in correspondence dated in August 2004, before the AOJ's initial adjudication of the claims. Specifically regarding VA's duty to notify, the notification to the Veteran apprised her of what the evidence must show to establish entitlement to the benefits sought, what evidence and/or information was already in the RO's possession, what additional evidence and/or information was needed from the Veteran, what evidence VA was responsible for getting, and what information VA would assist in obtaining on the Veteran's behalf. Since the Board has concluded that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims for service connection, any questions as to the appropriate disability ratings or effective dates to be assigned are rendered moot, and no further notice is needed. See Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). Regarding VA's duty to assist, the RO obtained the Veteran's service treatment records. As discussed above, the RO requested additional treatment records identified by the Veteran. However, one of the doctors returned the request with no documents and the other doctor failed to respond to the RO's multiple requests. Additionally, the Veteran herself indicated that she had had no success in locating her records dating back to 1980 and 1981. The Board finds that additional efforts to obtain these records would be futile, and as such, the Board finds that VA has fulfilled its duty to assist in obtaining such records. VA has no duty to inform or assist that was not met. The Board finds that medical opinions on the questions of service connection for mitral valve prolapse and loss of vision in the left eye are not required because opinions are only necessary if the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim, but contains: 1) competent evidence of diagnosed disability or symptoms of disability, 2) establishes that the Veteran suffered an event, injury or disease in service, or has a presumptive disease during the pertinent presumptive period, and 3) indicates that the claimed disability may be associated with the in-service event, injury, or disease, or with another service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4) (2009); see McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). In this case, as described in detail above, there is insufficient evidence establishing that the Veteran has any current disability or suffered an event, injury or disease in service, or during any pertinent presumptive period. See Duenas v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 512 (2004). Consequently, given the standard of the regulation, the Board finds that VA did not have a duty to assist that was unmet. ORDER Service connection for mitral valve prolapsed is denied. Service connection for loss of vision in the left eye is denied. ____________________________________________ LANA K. JENG Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs