context: Just as a layperson may testify as to the physical manifestations of a disease or injury, so appellant here is testifying as to an incident or event that resulted in a physically observable injury, i.e., the craniocerebral trauma. Therefore, appellant is not necessarily opining as to a matter involving medical causation, and her statements render the instant claim well grounded.
citation_a.signal: but see
citation_a.identifier: 5 Vet.App. 91, 93
citation_a.parenthetical: Court held that lay assertion of medical causation did not render claim well grounded and vacated BVA decision that had found claim to be well grounded
citation_a.sentence: See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494 (1992); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990) (person submitting claim has “burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded”) (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a)); but see Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993) (Court held that lay assertion of medical causation did not render claim well grounded and vacated BVA decision that had found claim to be well grounded).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 1 Vet.App. 78, 81
citation_b.parenthetical: person submitting claim has "burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded"
citation_b.sentence: See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494 (1992); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990) (person submitting claim has “burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded”) (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a)); but see Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993) (Court held that lay assertion of medical causation did not render claim well grounded and vacated BVA decision that had found claim to be well grounded).