Citation Nr: 21068598 Decision Date: 11/10/21 Archive Date: 11/10/21 DOCKET NO. 16-36 648 DATE: November 10, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a dental disability, including temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder, based upon substitution of the Appellant as the claimant, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service from August 1979 to November 1984. He passed away in December 2020 and the Appellant, E.M., has been substituted as the claimant. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was before the Board in April 2019, at which time it was remanded for additional evidentiary development. Entitlement to service connection for a dental disability, including temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder, based upon substitution of the Appellant as the claimant, is remanded. The Veteran's service-treatment records reveal that he chipped his teeth and suffered trauma to his jaw in a motor vehicle accident in 1980. The Veteran filed a claim in 2014 and indicated that he injured his teeth and jaw in a motor vehicle accident. His April 2015 treatment records noted that he was assessed with bilateral TMJ syndrome. Physical examination of his face revealed crepitus bilaterally. Pursuant to the Board's remand instructions, a VA examination was performed in November 2019, at which time the examiner noted that he had no TMJ or dental disability. However, the examiner failed to acknowledge or discuss his TMJ diagnosed within the rating period on appeal. Accordingly, the Board finds that an addendum medical opinion is warranted on remand. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Forward the claims file to the November 2019 examiner to provide an addendum medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's TMJ diagnosed in April 2015. If the examiner is unavailable, forward to an appropriate clinician. The claims file, including a copy of this remand, should be reviewed and such review should be noted in the examination report. The examiner should respond to the following: Is it at least as likely as not (probability of at least 50 percent) that the TMJ diagnosed in April 2015 was incurred in and/or etiologically related to the Veteran's period of active service, including the in-service motor vehicle accident? The examiner must provide a comprehensive rationale for each opinion provided. Specifically, the examiner should review and discuss the Veteran's service-treatment records, post-service records, and statement submitted in December 2014. The examiner is advised that the Veteran was competent to report his symptoms and history, and such reports are to be considered in formulating any opinion. If any opinion cannot be given without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner does not have the knowledge or training. As appropriate, the AOJ should conduct additional development or supplement the record. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Merrick 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.