Citation Nr: 1804853	
Decision Date: 01/25/18    Archive Date: 02/05/18

DOCKET NO.  14-10 214	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke, Virginia


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a liver disorder, claimed as fatty liver disease.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Christopher Murray, Counsel


INTRODUCTION

The Veteran had active military service from September 1990 to December 2010 with additional duty in the U.S. Army National Guard.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an April 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia.

The Veteran testified before the Board at a July 2017 hearing conducted at the Board's offices in Washington, D.C.  A transcript of the hearing is of record.


FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran has been diagnosed with fatty liver disease, characterized by elevated laboratory findings and an enlarged liver; he has not been diagnosed with an associated or resulting chronic liver disability at any point during the appeal period.


CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a liver disorder have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

Duties to Notify and Assist

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 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2017).  See also Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002); Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004).  VA must also make reasonable efforts to assist the appellant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claim for the benefit sought, unless no reasonable possibility exists that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claims.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159.

The Veteran has been provided notice letters throughout the appeal that address all notice elements required.  All pertinent treatment records identified by the Veteran have been obtained, and VA examinations have been provided where warranted.  There has been no allegation of errors with the duties to notify and/or assist in the instant case.  See Shinseki v. Sanders/Simmons, 556 U.S. 396 (2009); see also Scott v McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board to search the record and address procedural arguments when the Veteran fails to raise them before the Board); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to duty to assist argument).

In light of the foregoing, the Board is satisfied that all relevant facts have been adequately developed to the extent possible; no further assistance to the appellant in developing the facts pertinent to the issue on appeal is required to comply with the duty to assist.  38 U.S.C. §§ 5103 and 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159.

Analysis

Board decisions must be based on the entire record, with consideration of all the evidence.  38 U.S.C. § 7104.  The law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the claimant.  Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000).  The Board must review the entire record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence.  Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

It is VA's defined and consistently applied policy to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent, however, with the facts shown in every case.  When, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant.  By reasonable doubt it is meant that an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence exists which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim.  Reasonable doubt is a substantial doubt and one within the range of probability as distinguished from pure speculation or remote possibility.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

Service connection may be established on a direct basis for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  That an injury or disease occurred in service is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury or disease.  In order to prevail on the issue of service connection there must be competent evidence of a current disability; medical evidence, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and competent evidence of a nexus between an in-service injury or disease and the current disability.  See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999).

The Veteran maintains entitlement to service connection for fatty liver disease.  Specifically, medical records indicate the Veteran has been found to have elevated laboratory findings as well as an enlarged liver, leading to the diagnosis of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.  This is essentially a laboratory finding.  However, to date, the Veteran has not been diagnosed with or otherwise been shown to have an associated chronic liver disability (e.g., cirrhosis, hepatitis, or other impairment of liver function) for which service connection may be awarded.

In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim of service connection on a direct basis pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); see also McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007) (a "current disability" exists if the diagnosed disability is present at the time of the claim or during the pendency of that claim).

There being no competent medical evidence of a diagnosed chronic disability resulting from fatty liver disease, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the Veteran's claim, and the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply.  Service connection for a liver disorder must be denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990).


ORDER

Service connection for a liver disorder is denied.


____________________________________________
MICHAEL D. LYON
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals



Department of Veterans Affairs