Citation Nr: 21009246 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 20-14 433 DATE: February 22, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the claim for service connection for stomach condition is reopened. Service connection for stomach condition is denied. Service connection for a heart condition is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. By a final May 1961 rating decision, the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a stomach condition was denied. Evidence received since then raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim for service connection. 2. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had a stomach condition at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. 3. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a heart condition began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The May 1961 rating decision denying service connection for stomach condition is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(b), 20.1103. 2. The criteria for reopening a previously denied claim of service connection for stomach condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). 3. The criteria for service connection for stomach condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 4. The criteria for service connection for a heart condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Army from November 1956 to November 1959. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran has not raised any issues with the duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “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.”); see also Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). New and Material Service connection for stomach condition was denied in a May 1961 rating decision. The Veteran did not appeal the issue of stomach condition, and new and material evidence was not submitted within the appeal period. Accordingly, the May 1961 rating decision is final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(b), 19.52. To reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim, new and material evidence must be submitted by the claimant or secured by the VA with respect to that claim since the last final denial, regardless of the basis for that denial. VA defines “new and material evidence” as follows. “New evidence” means evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers, and “material evidence” means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). To warrant reopening, the new evidence must neither be cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Id.; see Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117 (2010) (holding that there is a “low threshold” for reopening). The credibility of the evidence is presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). The RO previously denied the Veteran’s claim for service-connection for stomach condition due to the Veteran failing to report for an examination. The Veteran’s claims file now includes a November 1959 in-service diagnosis of mild gastritis. The Board finds that this new evidence is not cumulative or redundant of the evidence previously of records, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate service connection, and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). This evidence satisfies the low threshold requirement for new and material evidence, and the claim is reopened. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection for a disability, a Veteran must show: (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. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Stomach Condition The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for a stomach condition. For the following reasons, the Board disagrees and finds that service connection is not warranted. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a stomach condition and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The Veteran underwent a VA examination in January 2020. The examiner evaluated the Veteran and determined that, while he experienced subjective symptoms of stomach problems, he did not have a diagnosis of a stomach condition. The examiner noted prior diagnoses of gastritis in November 1959 and acute duodenal ulcer in October 1960, but found that the gastritis had resolved and was unable to find evidence of chronic symptoms related to a duodenal ulcer. Further, VA treatment records during the period on appeal do not contain a diagnosis of a stomach condition. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s contention that he has a current stomach disability that has existed since service. The Veteran has not shown that he has the requisite medical knowledge to diagnose himself with a stomach disability. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board affords the Veteran’s lay statement less probative weight and affords more probative weight to the findings of the January 2020 VA examiner. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosed stomach condition. Because the preponderance of the evidence weighs against this claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. As such, service connection for a stomach condition is denied. Heart Condition The Veteran contends that he has heart condition that started during service. For the following reasons, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted. During the pendency of the appeal the Veteran was receiving treatment for atrial fibrillation. The Veteran’s service records include a September 1959 report of medical history where the Veteran reported palpitations or pounding of the heart and it was noted by a physician to be occasional precordial palpitations. This satisfies the first two elements for service connection. Turing to the third element, medical nexus, the evidence consists of two VA examinations. The first examination was in June 2018. The examiner noted a diagnosis of supraventricular arrhythmia and opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s supraventricular arrhythmia was incurred in or caused by in-service heart palpitations. The examiner failed to provide an adequate rationale to support their finding. As such, the Board finds this examination to be inadequate and affords it no probative weight. The Veteran was provided another VA examination in January 2020. The examiner noted past diagnoses of supraventricular arrhythmia and unspecified atrial flutter that are now resolved. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s supraventricular arrhythmia was incurred in or caused by in-service palpitations. The examiner based their opinion on the lack of evidence indicating continuous symptoms related to supraventricular arrhythmia, the Veteran having a normal heart examination on separation, and no diagnosis of supraventricular arrhythmia in the Veteran’s service records. The examiner is competent to provide this opinion, the Board finds them to be credible, and affords them great probative weight. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s contention that he has had heart problems since service. However, the Veteran has not shown that he has the requisite medical knowledge to provide a medical nexus opinion for his current disability. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board affords the Veteran’s lay statement less probative weight and affords more probative weight to the January 2020 examination. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s supraventricular arrhythmia was incurred in service or caused by in-service heart palpitations. Because the preponderance of the evidence weighs against this claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. As such, service connection for a heart condition is denied. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Chandeck, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.