Citation Nr: 18147138 Decision Date: 11/02/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 15-19 049 DATE: November 2, 2018 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for a dental disorder, claimed as implant and cracked root, for compensation purposes is remanded. Additionally, as reflected in his January 2012 informal claim, the Veteran raised the issue of entitlement to service connection for a dental disorder for treatment purposes. A claim for service connection for a dental disorder for treatment purposes is separate and distinct from a claim for service connection for a dental disorder for compensation purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.381; Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 302, 306 (1993). The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) with respect to claims for service connection for a dental disorder for treatment purposes is the Veterans Health Administration (i.e., a VA Medical Center). 38 C.F.R. § 3.381. Currently, the record does not document any decision by the AOJ with respect to the claim of entitlement to service connection for a dental disorder for treatment purposes. As such, the Board does not have jurisdiction over this issue, and it is referred to the AOJ, namely, the appropriate VA Medical Center, for appropriate action. 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(b). REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1981 to July 1985 and from June 1987 to January 2010, including service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Denver, Colorado. Jurisdiction of the Veteran’s claims file currently resides with the Waco, Texas RO. In October 2017, the Veteran and his spouse testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Service Connection for a Dental Disorder for Compensation Purposes To establish a right to compensation for a present 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection for dental disabilities for compensation purposes may only be established for certain specified dental disorders. Cf. 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Codes 9900-16. These disorders include chronic osteomyelitis or osteoradionecrosis of the maxilla or mandible; loss, nonunion, or malunion of the mandible; limited temporomandibular articulation; loss of the ramus; loss of the condyloid or coronoid processes; loss of hard palate; loss of teeth due to loss of substance of body of maxilla or mandible without loss of continuity; and loss, malunion, or nonunion of the maxilla. Id. With respect to loss of teeth, bone loss through trauma or disease, such as osteomyelitis, must be shown. 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Code 9913, Note (adding that the ratings regarding loss of teeth do not apply to the loss of the alveolar process as a result of periodontal disease, as such loss is not considered disabling). In this case, the Veteran contends that he has a current dental disorder because of an in-service trauma in March 1996 when he was injured during a parachuting accident. In a statement first received by VA in January 2012, Dr. Fruithandler—a non-VA dentist—stated that he first treated the Veteran in November 2010 for extensive bone loss around the MB root. Although Dr. Fruithandler stated that he was not certain what caused the problem, he did state that it appeared to have been a longstanding, chronic problem for the Veteran. In light of Dr. Fruithandler’s statement, the Board remands the issue of service connection for compensation purposes for the provision of a VA examination and medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s dental disorder. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA dental examination. The examiner should review the claims file, and any necessary imaging studies should be taken in connection with the claim. Following a review of the claims file and an examination of the Veteran, the examiner should state whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent degree of probability or higher) that any current dental disability is due to in-service trauma, particularly the March 1996 parachuting accident. The examiner should consider the Veteran’s statements as to the circumstances surrounding his in-service dental trauma to be credible for purposes of the opinion. The examiner must also address whether any in-service dental trauma caused a loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible, resulting in a loss of teeth, and, if so, specify any teeth so affected. In rendering the findings and opinions requested above, the examiner should specifically comment upon the statement of Dr. Fruithandler. A rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions rendered. S. C. KREMBS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N.S. Pettine, Associate Counsel