Citation Nr: 18155503 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/04/18 DOCKET NO. 14-40 240A DATE: December 4, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a dental condition, claimed as a residual injury due to fractured teeth, for compensation purposes is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a dental disorder, claimed as a residual injury due to fractured teeth, for treatment purposes is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Any inservice dental trauma did not cause a loss of substance of the body of either the maxilla or the mandible, or result in disease such as osteomyelitis CONCLUSION OF LAW The Veteran does not have a dental disorder, claimed as residual injury due to fractured teeth, for compensation purposes. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1712; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.381, 4.150. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1975 to February 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Oakland, California. The Board has expanded the appeal to consider the claim of entitlement to service connection for a dental condition for treatment purposes in light of Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 302 (1993) (a claim for service connection for a dental disability is also a claim for VA outpatient dental treatment). In general, service connection will be granted for disability resulting from injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Dental disabilities, however, are treated differently from other medical disabilities in the VA benefits system. Generally, treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease are not considered disabling conditions and, therefore, they may not be service-connected except for the purpose of establishing entitlement to VA outpatient dental treatment. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381 (b). Service connection for a loss of teeth will be considered for compensation purposes, if it is due to a loss of substance of the body of either the maxilla or the mandible provided that the bone loss is due to either trauma or disease such as osteomyelitis and not to the loss of the alveolar process as a result of periodontal disease. 38 U.S.C. 1712; 38 C.F.R. 3.381, 4.150. A review of the service treatment records shows that in July 1976 the appellant was involved in a motorcycle accident. Additionally, teeth numbered 7-9 were fractured and avulsed. Teeth 7, 9, 9 and 10 were all mobile. An arch bar was placed between teeth 6 and 11 for stabilization. Copalite was placed over fractured teeth 7, 8, and 9. In late July 1976 the arch bar was removed. In August and September 1976 teeth 7 through 10 were refiled, and filed with “GP” and canal filler. The records do not indicate that any teeth were lost or extracted, nor do they provide evidence of bone trauma subject to compensation. The appellant’s dental records do not show a loss of substance of either the maxilla or the mandible body, or evidence of a disease such as osteomyelitis VA outpatient notes show that the appellant is edentulous, and they also note the inservice accident. Significantly, there is no competent evidence in either VA records or any private record that the claimant’s current edentulous state was due to the inservice accident. There further is no evidence of any anatomical loss or mandibular injury that is not due to edentulous atrophy or periodontal disease. In this case, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in June 2016. The examiner determined the appellant was edentulous, and that he may need full dentures. As none of the above dental conditions were noted upon entry, the Veteran has provided competent evidence of inservice dental trauma. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service-connection for a mandibular fracture resulting in nonunion of the mandible, alleging that it is due to his inservice dental injury. While competent to attest to his inservice dental injury, there is no evidence of a mandibular fracture. Further, as noted above, there is no evidence that the appellant’s current lack of teeth is due to the 1976 injury. While the appellant is competent to report that he suffered a dental injury, as a lay person untrained in the fields of either dentistry or medicine he is not competent to offer an opinion linking his current condition to service. Under these circumstances, the criteria for service-connected compensation benefits are not met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and the doctrine of reasonable doubt is not for application. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REMAND In an October 2018 informal hearing presentation, the representative stated that, rather than compensation benefits, the Veteran was seeking service connection for his condition in order to maintain access to VA dental treatment. The representative requested a remand for a current dental examination, and to determine whether the Veteran was entitled to service connection for treatment purposes. On review, the Board is unable to locate any determinations in the claims folder concerning the Veteran’s eligibility for dental treatment. In an effort to assist him, this issue should be referred to the appropriate VA Medical Center. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Refer the claim of entitlement to outpatient dental treatment to the appropriate VA medical center for a determination as to eligibility. 2. Thereafter, readjudicate the issue. If the benefit sought remains denied, the appellant and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and given an opportunity to respond. DEREK R. BROWN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Carrie Ferrando