Citation Nr: 21067125 Decision Date: 11/03/21 Archive Date: 11/03/21 DOCKET NO. 17-28 968 DATE: November 3, 2021 ORDER The petition to reopen the claim of service connection for dental trauma is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral wrist disorder is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating prior to February 3, 2020 and a rating higher than 10 percent thereafter for the service-connected right thumb contusion is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 10 percent for the service-connected allergic rhinitis is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 30 percent for the service-connected headaches is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In March 2002, the RO denied service connection for dental trauma. The Veteran did not disagree with that decision, nor was new and material evidence received within one year, and the decision became final. 2. Since the March 2002 rating decision, new and material evidence has not been received that shows loss of teeth due to loss of substance of the maxilla or mandible body. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The March 2002 rating decision denying the service connection for dental trauma is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. 2. The criteria for reopening the claim of service connection for dental trauma have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103A, 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1973 to December 1982 and from April 1983 to May 1993. The matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from December 2014, January 2015, and February 2015 rating decisions. In June 2019, the Board remanded the matter for further development. With respect to the petition to reopen the claim of service connection for dental trauma, the Board instructed the RO to request service medical and dental records from the Veteran. This instruction was completed, and no records were received; accordingly, further remand is unnecessary for this claim. Regarding the remaining claims, another remand is necessary for additional development. The Veteran's complete service records are unavailable for review. When service records are missing through no fault of the claimant, VA has a heightened obligation to consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt rule, to assist the claimant in developing his claim, and to explain its decision. See O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365 (1991). No presumption, either in favor of the claimant or against VA, arises when there are lost or missing service records. See Cromer v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 215, 217-18 (2005). 1. The petition to reopen the claim of service connection for dental trauma is denied. The Veteran seeks to reopen his claim of service connection for dental trauma related to an in-service injury. The Veteran filed his initial claim for service connection in November 2001, which was denied by the RO in a March 2002 rating decision. He did not appeal this rating decision or submit new and material evidence within one year, and it became final. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. If new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a finally adjudicated claim, VA shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim. See Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 145 (1991). New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. See id. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. See id. Relevantly, service connection for a dental condition for compensation is only available for certain types of conditions, such as impairment of the mandible, impairment of the maxilla, or loss of teeth due to loss of substance of the maxilla or mandible body. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.150 (setting forth the schedule of ratings for dental and oral conditions). In March 2002, the RO denied the claim because the evidence did not show loss of teeth due to loss of substance of the maxilla or mandible body where the lost masticatory surface could not be restored by suitable prosthesis. The evidence associated with the claims file at that time included partial service treatment records and the Veteran's lay statements. Since then, new and material evidence has not been received sufficient to reopen the claim of service connection. While additional service treatment records, to include dental records, and post-service medical records were associated with the claims file, they do not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. Specifically, the new evidence does not show loss of teeth due to loss of substance of the maxilla or mandible body where the lost masticatory surface could not be restored by suitable prosthesis, nor other impairment of the mandible or maxilla. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. The Board thus finds that new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim of service connection for dental trauma and the petition to reopen is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. In October 2020, medical opinions were obtained for the Veteran's hypertension claim. The examiner opined that the Veteran's hypertension was less likely than not caused by his psychiatric disorder. Instead, the examiner wrote the Veteran's high cholesterol and possible thyroid condition were more likely to cause hypertension. The examiner also noted that the Veteran's high cholesterol began in service. The Board thus finds that a remand is necessary to clarify whether the Veteran's hypertension began in service. Additionally, the Board finds that the aggravation opinion was inadequate. The examiner noted that "there is no evidence of inservice hypertension to be aggravated beyond natural progression." Entitlement to service connection on a secondary basis due to aggravation does not require that the condition occur in service nor documentation that the aggravation was "beyond natural progression." Accordingly, a remand for an addendum medical opinion is necessary. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral wrist disorder is remanded. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in February 2020 for his bilateral wrist claim. The examiner opined the Veteran's wrist disorders were not related to service because in-service treatment records do not show chronic complaints or conditions. The Board finds that this opinion is inadequate because it solely relied on the lack of treatment in service and the Veteran's service treatment records are incomplete. Accordingly, a remand is necessary for an addendum medical opinion. 3. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating prior to February 3, 2020 and a rating higher than 10 percent thereafter for the service-connected right thumb contusion is remanded. 4. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 10 percent for the service-connected allergic rhinitis is remanded. 5. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 30 percent for the service-connected headaches is remanded. The Board finds that the Veteran's claims for higher ratings must be remanded because relevant VA treatment records are not associated with the claims file. Specifically, the claims file is missing complete Reno VAMC treatment records from August 2017 to January 2019 and available records suggest they contain relevant evidence. Accordingly, a remand is necessary to obtain these records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran's Reno VAMC treatment records from August 2017 to January 2019 and from September 2020 to the present. 2. Obtain an addendum medical opinion for the Veteran's claim for service connection for hypertension. After a review of the records, the examiner should respond to the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's hypertension began in service? i. The examiner must consider the February 2020 VA medical opinion that the Veteran's high cholesterol likely caused his hypertension, and his high cholesterol began in service. ii. The examiner must also consider the Veteran's October 2000 physical examination (located in STRs received February 23, 2002) which shows blood pressure levels of 132/84. (b.) If not, is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, to include his psychiatric disability and headaches disability, caused or aggravated his hypertension? i. Aggravation in this context does not need to be shown "beyond natural progression." Instead, here, aggravation means any increase in disability. 3. Obtain an addendum medical opinion for the Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral wrist disability. After a review of the records, the examiner should respond to the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's current bilateral wrist disorders, to include tendonitis and carpal tunnel syndrome, began in or are otherwise related to service? (b.) The Board emphasizes that the Veteran's service treatment records are incomplete through no fault of his own. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Lavan 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.