Citation Nr: 18147074 Decision Date: 11/02/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 15-08 944A DATE: November 2, 2018 ORDER Recognition of G.H. as the helpless child of the Veteran on the basis of permanent incapacity for self-support prior to attaining the age of 18, is denied. FINDING OF FACT G.H. has not been shown to have been permanently incapable of self-support prior to attaining the age of 18. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for recognition of G.H. as a “helpless child” of the Veteran have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.356 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran, who is the appellant in this case, served on active duty from June 1986 to June 1991, from August 2004 to January 2005, and from September 2007 to May 2011. She also served in the Colorado Army National Guard from August 2000 to June 2004, as well as additional unverified Reserve Component service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Denver, Colorado. The Veteran has another appeal before the Board. Because that appeal involves issues dependent on different law and facts, it is the subject of a separate decision. Entitlement to recognition of G.H. as the helpless child of the Veteran on the basis of permanent incapacity for self-support prior to attaining the age of 18. The Veteran contends that her son, G.H., was rendered incapable of self-support prior to attaining the age of 18. For purposes of determining eligibility as a claimant, a child must be unmarried and either must be under the age of 18, have become permanently incapable of self-support before the age of 18, or be between the ages of 18 and 23 and pursuing a course of instruction at an approved educational institution. 38 U.S.C. 101(4)(A)(ii); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.57(a)(1), 3.356. To establish entitlement to the benefit sought on the basis of being a helpless child, various factors under 38 C.F.R. § 3.356 are for consideration. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.356. The Court has held that, in “helpless child” cases, the focus must be on the claimant’s condition at the time of his or her 18th birthday. See Dobson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 443, 445 (1993). In other words, for purposes of initially establishing helpless child status, the claimant’s condition subsequent to his or her18th birthday is not for consideration. If a finding is made that a claimant was permanently incapable of self-support as of his or her 18th birthday, however, then evidence of the claimant’s subsequent condition becomes relevant for the second step of the analysis, that is, whether there is improvement sufficient to render the claimant capable of self-support. Id. If the claimant is shown to be capable of self-support at age 18, VA is required to proceed no further. Id. By way of background, the Veteran’s son, G.H., attained the age of 18 in August 2006. The Veteran contends that G.H. constitutes a helpless child because he became incapable of self-support prior to the age of 18 due to his disabilities. Turning to the evidence, an April 2001 treatment record indicated that G.H. had been diagnosed with autoimmune uveitis which may be a chronic problem. His immune system was putting cells and protein into his eyes producing redness and difficulty with sight. The treating physician opined that without aggressive treatment, this disease may cause blindness. In a March 2002 letter, G.H.’s treating physician stated that G.H. had a history of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis which had involved both eyes. A May 2004 medical treatment record indicated that G.H. had juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune deficiency disorder, and iritis. A July 2005 medical treatment record showed “idiopathic uveitis well controlled on methotrexate but with some side effects including headache and abdominal pain which may also be stress related.” His regular physician was generally pleased with the control of the inflammation in the eyes. A November 2005 treatment record for an ankle injury sustained while playing basketball described G.H. as “otherwise well.” After his 18th birthday, a November 2006 treatment record for gastrointestinal distress described G.H. as having “no other abnormalities” and being “in his usual state of health until early October when he had the acute onset of epigastric abdominal pain.” A separate November 2006 treatment record stated that he had last been seen in July 2005, for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and uveitis, “he has done extremely well.” His last flare-up of uveitis had been 18 months prior. In a March 2008 letter, G.H.’s treating ophthalmologist stated that G.H. had chronic iritis and a history of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. He had not experienced any active episodes of iritis since July 2005. His visual acuity was correctable to a level of 20/20 in each eye and his ophthalmologic examination was unremarkable. Based on review of the evidence, lay and medical, the Board finds that G.H. was not incapable of self-support prior to attaining the age of 18. While G.H. was diagnosed with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and uveitis prior to the age of 18, there is no evidence that such disabilities rendered him incapable of self-support and the mere diagnosis of these disabilities is not sufficient by itself to show that G.H. was permanently incapable of self-support prior to attaining 18 years of age. In the absence of probative evidence addressing the severity of G.H.’s juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and uveitis, or whether G.H. is incapable of self-support, the claim cannot be granted. Given the record before it, the Board finds that the evidence in this case does not reach the level of equipoise regarding whether G.H. was permanently and totally incapacitated prior to attaining the age of 18. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a) (“[A] claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits....”); Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In sum, the Board finds that while G.H.’s juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and uveitis existed prior to his becoming 18 years of age, they are not shown to have rendered him incapable of self-support. Therefore, recognition of G.H. as a “helpless child” on the basis of permanent incapacity for self-support prior to attaining age 18 is denied. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 510(b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. LAURA E. COLLINS Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Thomas, Associate Counsel