Citation Nr: 1319975 Decision Date: 06/20/13 Archive Date: 07/02/13 DOCKET NO. 05-31 336 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Phoenix, Arizona THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Shamil Patel, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from November 2002 to July 2004. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2004 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Phoenix, Arizona, which denied service connection for sinusitis. The current claim on appeal was previously remanded by the Board in January 2010, May 2011, and February 2013, and now returns to the Board for further review. A portion of the Veteran's records are contained in the Virtual VA system. Instead of paper, a highly secured electronic repository is used to store and review every document involved in the claims process. The use of this system allows VA to leverage information technology in order to more quickly and accurately decide a Veteran's claim for benefits. Because the current appeal was processed as part of the Virtual VA system, any future consideration of this appellant's case should take into consideration the existence of this electronic record. FINDING OF FACT Sinusitis has not been diagnosed during the period on appeal. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for sinusitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002 and Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 A. Duty to Notify Under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA), when VA receives a complete or substantially complete application for benefits, it must notify the claimant of the information and evidence not of record that is necessary to substantiate a claim, which information and evidence VA will obtain, and which information and evidence the claimant is expected to provide. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2012). Such notice must include notice that a disability rating and an effective date for the award of benefits will be assigned if there is a favorable disposition of the claim. Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006); 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.326; see also Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112, 120-21 (2004) (Pelegrini II). Prior to the initial adjudication of the Veteran's claim, a letter dated in September 2004 was sent to the Veteran in accordance with the duty to notify provisions of the VCAA. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002). The Veteran was notified of the evidence that was needed to substantiate his claim; what information and evidence that VA will seek to provide and what information and evidence the Veteran was expected to provide, and that VA would assist him in obtaining evidence, but that it was his responsibility to provide VA with any evidence pertaining to his claim. See Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112, 120-21 (2004) (Pelegrini II). In Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that, upon receipt of an application for a service-connection claim, 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) require VA to review the information and the evidence presented with the claim and to provide the claimant with notice of what information and evidence not previously provided, if any, will assist in substantiating, or is necessary to substantiate, each of the five elements of the claim, including notice of what is required to establish service connection and that a disability rating and an effective date for the award of benefits will be assigned if service connection is awarded. In this case, although the notice provided did not address either the rating criteria or effective date provisions that are pertinent to the appellant's claim, such error was harmless given that service connection is being denied, and hence no rating or effective date will be assigned with respect to this claimed condition. B. Duty to Assist The Veteran's service treatment records, VA treatment records, Social Security Administration (SSA) records, and lay statements have been associated with the claims file. The Veteran was also afforded VA examinations. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The VA examinations obtained in this case are adequate as they are collectively predicated on a review of the claims file; contain a description of the history of the disability at issue; document and consider the relevant medical facts and principles; and, to the extent possible, discuss the nature and etiology of the Veteran's claimed sinus condition. VA's duty to assist with respect to obtaining a VA examination or opinion for the issues on appeal has been met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). The Veteran's claim was previously remanded to provide the Veteran with appropriate VCAA notice, and obtain outstanding treatment records, SSA records, and medical examinations and opinions. As discussed above, these objectives have been completed. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Court or the Board confers on the veteran or other claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders). VA has provided the Veteran with the opportunity to submit evidence and argument in support of his claim. The Veteran has not made the Board aware of any additional evidence that needs to be obtained prior to appellate review, and no further action must be undertaken to comply with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a), § 5103A, or 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Service Connection A. Applicable Law In order to establish service connection for a claimed disability, the facts must demonstrate that a disease or injury resulting in current disability was incurred in active military service or, if pre-existing active service, was aggravated therein. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2012). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (2012). For a showing of chronic disease in service, there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word "chronic." Continuity of symptomatology is required where the condition noted during service is not, in fact, shown to be chronic or where the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. If the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (2012). However, service connection based on a theory of continuity of symptomatology is applicable only for those disabilities explicitly recognized as "chronic" in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004), citing Hansen v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 110, 111 (2002); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). The evaluation of evidence generally involves a three-step inquiry. First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a "competent" source. The Board must then determine if the evidence is credible, or worthy of belief. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (Observing that once evidence is determined to be competent, the Board must determine whether such evidence is also credible). The third step of this inquiry requires the Board to weigh the probative value of the proffered evidence in light of the entirety of the record. Competent lay evidence means any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Lay evidence may be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when: (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition (i.e., when the layperson will be competent to identify the condition where the condition is simple, for example a broken leg, and sometimes not, for example, a form of cancer); (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or; (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In ascertaining the competency of lay evidence, the Courts have generally held that a layperson is not capable of opining on matters requiring medical knowledge. Routen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 183 (1997). In certain instances, however, lay evidence has been found to be competent with regard to a disease with "unique and readily identifiable features" that is "capable of lay observation." See, e.g., Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (concerning varicose veins); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (a dislocated shoulder); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002) (tinnitus); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995) (flatfeet). Laypersons have also been found to not be competent to provide evidence in more complex medical situations. See Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007) (concerning rheumatic fever). Competent medical evidence is evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions. Competent medical evidence may also include statements conveying sound medical principles found in medical treatises. It also includes statements contained in authoritative writings, such as medical and scientific articles and research reports or analyses. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1). After determining the competency and credibility of evidence, the Board must then weigh its probative value. In this function, the Board may properly consider internal inconsistency, facial plausibility, and consistency with other evidence submitted on behalf of the claimant. Caluza at 511-512 (1995), aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (table); see Madden v. Brown, 125 F.3d 1447 (Fed Cir. 1997) (holding that the Board has the "authority to discount the weight and probative value of evidence in light of its inherent characteristics in its relationship to other items of evidence"). B. Evidence and Analysis Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran has been granted service connection for allergic rhinitis. Therefore, findings pertaining to that disability will not be addressed. The Veteran underwent an enlistment examination in May 2002. No relevant abnormalities were noted, and he denied a history of sinusitis. However, in May 2003, he complained of cold symptoms, a headache, and sinus tenderness. He was diagnosed with pharyngitis. There were no further complaints of sinus problems in service, and the Veteran's May 2004 separation examination was normal. However, he did endorse a history of sinusitis in an April 2004 medical history report. After service, VA treatment records dated August 2004 show the Veteran again complained of sinus problems. The Veteran underwent a general VA examination in October 2004. He reported a history of sinusitis. He currently experienced soreness, pressure, and pain around the periorbital maxillary area. On examination, no abnormalities were noted, and the x-rays of the sinuses were normal. The examiner noted sinusitis by history, with normal findings on examination. An additional VA examination was conducted in February 2010. However, the Veteran was diagnosed only with rhinitis. A set of sinus x-rays had been requested, but the examination report states that the Veteran "failed x-rays report." An additional examination in June 2011 noted an April 2010 sinus x-ray that was unremarkable, and that current x-rays also showed no evidence of chronic sinus disease. A sinus condition was not diagnosed. Based on the evidence of record, service connection for sinusitis is not warranted. Although the Veteran reported sinus-related complaints in 2003 during service, he was diagnosed with pharyngitis, and his service treatment records contain no additional findings. Moreover, while he reported a history of sinusitis prior to discharge, his May 2004 separation examination was normal. In addition, while the Veteran continued to report complaints associated with the sinuses after his separation from service, there are no competent diagnoses of a sinus condition. Examinations in October 2004 and June 2011 specifically noted that no sinus condition was present. The Veteran's outpatient treatment records and SSA records also do not contain any findings relating to sinusitis or other sinus conditions. The Board has considered the Veteran's own statements regarding his condition. Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), as to the specific issue in this case, diagnosing a sinus condition falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (lay persons not competent to diagnose cancer). The Veteran has not demonstrated that he has the specialized knowledge or expertise to render such a diagnosis himself. In McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007), the Court held that a service connection claim may be granted if a diagnosis of a chronic disability was made during the pendency of the appeal, even if the most recent medical evidence suggests that the disability resolved). Recently, in Romanowsky v. Shinseki, No. 11-3272 (Vet. App. May 9, 2013), the Court further clarified that the Board must address diagnoses generated prior to the filing of a claim in determining whether a current disability existed during the pendency of the claim. In this case, however, there is no actual diagnosis of a sinus disability prior to the claim or during the pendency of the claim. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328 (1997). In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143- 44 (1992). Therefore, service connection for sinusitis is not warranted. ORDER Service connection for sinusitis is denied. ____________________________________________ P. M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs