Citation Nr: 1817841	
Decision Date: 03/23/18    Archive Date: 04/03/18

DOCKET NO.  16-54 909	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boston, Massachusetts


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a dental disorder for compensation purposes only.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Massachusetts Department of Veterans Services


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Christopher Murray, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2017).  38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) (2012).

The Veteran had active military service from September 1961 to September 1965.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a February 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Boston, Massachusetts.

The Veteran testified before the Board at a February 2018 hearing conducted via videoconference.  A transcript of the hearing is of record.


FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran has not been diagnosed with a dental disorder, to include loss of teeth requiring dentures, for which service-connected compensation is payable.


CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for a dental disorder for compensation purposes have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.381, 4.150, 17.161 (2017).


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

Duties to Notify and Assist

When VA receives a complete or substantially complete application for benefits, it must notify the claimant of the information and evidence not of record that is necessary to substantiate a claim, which information and evidence VA will obtain, and which information and evidence the claimant is expected to provide.  38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2017).  See also Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002); Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004).  VA must also make reasonable efforts to assist the appellant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claim for the benefit sought, unless no reasonable possibility exists that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claims.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159.

The Veteran has been provided notice letters throughout the appeal that address all notice elements required.  All pertinent treatment records identified by the Veteran have been obtained, and VA examinations have been provided where warranted.  There has been no allegation of errors with the duties to notify and/or assist in the instant case.  See Shinseki v. Sanders/Simmons, 556 U.S. 396 (2009); see also Scott v McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board to search the record and address procedural arguments when the Veteran fails to raise them before the Board); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to duty to assist argument).

In light of the foregoing, the Board is satisfied that all relevant facts have been adequately developed to the extent possible; no further assistance to the appellant in developing the facts pertinent to the issue on appeal is required to comply with the duty to assist.  38 U.S.C. §§ 5103 and 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159.

Analysis

Board decisions must be based on the entire record, with consideration of all the evidence.  38 U.S.C. § 7104.  The law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the claimant.  Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000).  The Board must review the entire record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence.  Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

It is VA's defined and consistently applied policy to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent, however, with the facts shown in every case.  When, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant.  By reasonable doubt it is meant that an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence exists which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim.  Reasonable doubt is a substantial doubt and one within the range of probability as distinguished from pure speculation or remote possibility.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

The Veteran seeks compensation for a dental disorder, claimed generally as loss of teeth requiring full dentures.  Dental disabilities that may be awarded compensable disability ratings are set forth under 38 C.F.R. § 4.150.  These disabilities include chronic osteomyelitis or osteoradionecrosis of the maxilla or mandible, loss of the mandible, nonunion or malunion of the mandible, loss of the maxilla, nonunion or malunion of the maxilla, limited temporomandibular motion, loss of the ramus, loss of the condyloid or coronoid processes, loss of the hard palate, loss of teeth due to the loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible and where the lost masticatory surface cannot be restored by suitable prosthesis, when the bone loss is a result of trauma or disease but not the result of periodontal disease.  38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Codes 9900-9916 (2017).

Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.381, treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease are to be considered service-connected solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for outpatient dental treatment as provided in 38 C.F.R. § 17.161.  Initially, the Board notes that service connection for periodontitis for treatment purposes only was awarded by a November 1965 rating decision and therefore is not the subject of the Board's review.  Rather, the Board will address whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for VA compensation purposes.

The Veteran has claimed service connection generally for loss of teeth requiring full sets of dentures.  As noted above, replaceable missing teeth and periodontal gum disease may be considered service-connected solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for outpatient dental treatment.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.381.  In this case, there is no competent medical or dental evidence of loss of teeth due to loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible due to bone loss through trauma or any other condition on which service connection could be allowed.  While records demonstrate missing teeth, dental restorations, caries, and generalized bone loss, these conditions have been determined to be due to severe systemic periodontitis.  See July 1965 service treatment record.  The Veteran has never at any time during the course of the appeal alleged incurring an injury or trauma to the mandible or maxilla.  In other words, none of the Diagnostic Codes, 9900 through 9916, apply in this case.

In sum, there is no competent medical evidence that the Veteran has any current dental disorder for which compensation is payable.  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.150.  Based on the foregoing, the Board concludes that there is no basis under the law for the award of service-connected VA disability compensation for a current dental disorder.  Under these circumstances, the Board must deny the claim for service connection for a dental disorder for compensation purposes.

In reaching the conclusions above the Board has again considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine.  However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, that doctrine is not applicable, and the claim must be denied.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990).


ORDER

Service connection for a dental disorder for compensation purposes only is denied.


____________________________________________
MICHAEL D. LYON
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Department of Veterans Affairs