BVA Case 94-503: Back

Savage, appeals a March 16, 1994, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) that denied a claim of service connection for a right hip disability after determining that new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the claim (claim l); denied service connection for arthritis of multiple joints, other than the right hip (claim 2); and found not well grounded a claim of secondary service connection due to service-connected malaria for arthritis of multiple joints other than the right hip (claim 3).

In March 1990, the RO denied service connection for arthritis of multiple joints, secondary to the service-connected malaria, and determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for a right hip disorder.

In February 1991, a VA hearing officer confirmed the denial of service connection for arthritis of multiple joints, secondary to the service-connected malaria, and determined that no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for a right hip disorder.

In May 1992, the RO denied, inter alia, service connection for a back condition, determined that no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for a right hip disorder, and confirmed the denial of service connection for arthritis of multiple joints.

Later that same month, a VA hearing officer confirmed the denial of service connection for arthritis of multiple joints, and determined that no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for a right hip disorder.

On March 16, 1994, in the decision here on appeal, the BVA, after first finding that all relevant evidence had been obtained by the RO, determined that (1) new and material evidence had been presented to reopen the claim of service connection for a right hip disorder but found that a right hip disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by service; (2) arthritis of multiple joints other than the right hip was not incurred in or aggravated by service; and (3) a well-grounded claim had not been submitted for service connection for arthritis of multiple joints, secondary to the appellant's service-connected malaria.

The appellant filed a timely appeal to the Court, arguing, inter alia, that the BVA had breached the duty to assist by failing to provide a medical examination and expert opinion as to the relationship between the appellant’s present disability and his injury in service.

In a March 19, 1996, single-judge memorandum decision, the Court affirmed the BVA decision, holding that the appellant had not submitted well-grounded claims for either direct or 5 secondary service connection for arthritis of multiple joints other than the right hip, that no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen a claim of service connection for a right hip disability, and that, as a consequence, the duty to assist did not attach.