Citation Nr: 1323382 Decision Date: 07/23/13 Archive Date: 08/01/13 DOCKET NO. 10-00 566 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional Office Center in Wichita, Kansas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of removal of a cyst of the mouth. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James R. Siegel, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1983 to July 1993. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2009 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of the removal of a mouth cyst. A statement of the case addressing the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected low back disability was issued in June 2009. A substantive appeal concerning this matter was not received. In addition, the Board notes that the statement of the case issued in December 2009 addressed the Veteran's claim for service connection for a tooth condition. By rating action dated April 2010, the RO granted service connection for dental treatment purposes for tooth number 8. This decision, accordingly, is limited to the issue set forth on the preceding page. FINDING OF FACT There has been no demonstration by competent medical, or competent and credible lay, evidence of record that the Veteran has residuals of the removal of a cyst in the mouth. CONCLUSION OF LAW Residuals of removal of a mouth cyst were not incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 2002). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Notice and Assistance VA has duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a). See also Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002); Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). Notice was provided to the appellant in a December 2008 letter. The record also reflects that VA has made reasonable efforts to obtain relevant records adequately identified by the appellant. Specifically, the information and evidence that have been associated with the claims file include the service treatment and dental records, VA medical records and Social Security Administration records. The Board acknowledges the appellant has not been afforded a VA medical examination to obtain an opinion regarding the existence or etiology of any residuals of the mouth cyst. Based on the evidence in this case, the Board finds that an examination is not necessary. As is discussed in greater detail below, there has been no indication that any current claimed disability, if present, may be associated with service, so as to warrant a VA examination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that all relevant facts have been properly and sufficiently developed in this appeal and no further development is required to comply with the duty to assist the appellant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim. Essentially, all available evidence that could substantiate the claim has been obtained. Analysis The Board has reviewed all the evidence in the appellant's claims file. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the appellant or obtained on her behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to each claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-30 (2000). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires medical evidence or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of the following: (1) A current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) nexus between the claimed in-service disease and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed.Cir.2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed.Cir.2007); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed.Cir.1996) (table). The service dental records show that a cyst from the incisal canal was removed in July 1985. It was reported one week later that the healing was excellent. The Veteran did not mention the cyst of the mouth on a report of medical history in June 1993. A clinical evaluation of the mouth and throat on the separation examination in June 1993 was normal. The Veteran submitted claims for service connection for various disabilities in September 1993 and in May 2002. Neither claim referred to a cyst of the mouth. The Veteran was afforded a VA general medical examination in October 2003. He related that he injured his mouth in service. An examination revealed the oral mucous membranes were healthy. There were no findings concerning a cyst. VA outpatient treatment records disclose the Veteran was seen for unrelated complaints in February 2005. The mouth and throat were unremarkable on examination. Lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues based on what they experience. However, in the instant case a review of the claims file does not show that the Veteran is claiming that he has current residuals of the inservice cyst. It is not disputed that the Veteran had a cyst in his mouth removed while he was in service. It is significant to point out that there is no evidence following service that any residuals from the removal of the cyst in the mouth are present. In his substantive appeal, the Veteran indicated that he was having problems with a tooth and his "partial" needs to be changed. However, he did not report any current cyst in the mouth. Moreover, a review of medical evidence as outlined above shows no residuals of the inservice cyst. Under the circumstances of this case, neither the Veteran nor medical personnel have reported any current residuals of the cyst. That an injury occurred in service alone is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Congress specifically limited entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents had resulted in a disability. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). As noted above, since the record fails to establish the Veteran has any residuals of the removal of a cyst in the mouth, service connection may not be granted. In reaching the above conclusions, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, and that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-56 (1990). ORDER Service connection for residuals of the removal of a cyst in the mouth is denied. ____________________________________________ ALAN S. PEEVY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs