Citation Nr: 20006764 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/27/20 DOCKET NO. 16-29 124 DATE: January 28, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for compensation purposes is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1957 to August 1959, with additional service and periods of active duty training in the Army Reserve. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2018, a hearing was held before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In July 2018, the Board denied the claim. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 2019 Order, the Court granted a July 2019 Joint Motion for Remand (Joint Motion) vacating the July 2018 Board decision and remanding the appeal for further action in compliance with the Joint Motion.   Dental Disability The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for compensation purposes because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran has a dental disability that is related to service. A VA examination must be scheduled when the record contains competent evidence that the claimant has a current disability or signs and symptoms of a current disability, the record indicates that the disability or signs and symptoms of disability may be associated with active service, and the record does not contain sufficient information to decide the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-83 (2006). As noted in the Joint Motion, there is evidence that the Veteran suffered damage to his upper right incisor as a result of being struck in the mouth with a tent pole during active duty training in August 1960, which required a root canal and replacement of his tooth with a porcelain jacket. Additionally, an April 2018 letter from a private dentist, N.S., indicates that the Veteran’s mandibular ridge was resorbed. As noted in the Joint Motion, the definition of resorption of a bone (such as a mandible) indicates that there may be a loss of substance of the mandible. Only certain types of dental and oral conditions are eligible for compensation, including loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or the mandible due to trauma or disease. 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. N.S. indicated that it was “not outside the realm of possibility that the injury he sustained in his military service may be one of any number of factors leading to his current dental condition.” The Board finds that the record indicates that the Veteran may have a current dental disability that is related to service but does not contain sufficient evidence to decide the claim. Thus, a VA examination must be scheduled.   The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any updated VA treatment records from December 2016 to the present. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any dental disability. The VA examiner should identify any dental disabilities that have been diagnosed and should specifically address the April 2018 letter from Dr. N.S., which indicated the Veteran’s “mandibular ridge is resorbed and flat.” The examiner should state whether there is loss of substance of the mandible. The examiner must opine whether any dental disability diagnosed, to include any loss of substance of the mandible, is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the August 1960 incident during active duty training where the Veteran suffered damage to his upper right incisor after being struck by a tent pole, which required a root canal and replacement of his tooth with a porcelain jacket. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the clinician cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the clinician must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The clinician must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally,   the clinician must indicate whether any opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Marenna, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.