Citation Nr: 21072142 Decision Date: 12/02/21 Archive Date: 12/02/21 DOCKET NO. 13-25 422A DATE: December 2, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for jaw pain secondary to trauma is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for headaches as secondary to jaw pain is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from July 1979 to July 1983. The Veteran also served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from November 1986 to January 1992. The character of discharge, however, for this latter period of service is a bar to VA benefits and, as such, no compensation based on such service is permitted. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned in June 2017. A transcript of the proceeding is of record. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for jaw pain and headaches which are claimed as secondary to a jaw disability. When these issues were last before the Board in January 2018, it was determined that further development was needed to include affording the Veteran a VA examination. In relation to his claim, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2019. During the examination, the Veteran examiner opined the condition was less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event or illness. The examiner reasoned that: No new evidence was submitted by the Veteran since the C&P Dental exam dated 07/18/2013. There is no record of a jaw condition and there are no records indicating the removal of teeth #8, 9, 10 during military service. It is far more likely that the Veteran lost these teeth (as well as others) due to periodontal disease in the absence of good oral hygiene and regular professional dental treatment Although the examiner found that there was no record of a jaw condition, the Veteran has reported jaw pain. The Veteran essentially argues that he has jaw pain that is due to trauma in service. He reports that his jaw locks which causes pain and makes it hard to perform dental hygiene. The Board notes that a Veteran may be service connected for pain with functional impairment. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (2018). Accordingly, a remand is warranted to obtain an addendum opinion to ascertain the nature and etiology of the Veteran's jaw pain, to include whether the pain amounts to functional impairment such that it is considered a disability. Id. The Board will defer on the issue of entitlement to service connection for headaches as secondary to a jaw disability. The Board finds that the Veteran's claims for entitlement to service connection for a jaw disability secondary to trauma and entitlement to service connection for headaches secondary to a jaw disability are inextricably intertwined with one another. Issues are considered to be inextricably intertwined when a determination on one issue could have a significant impact on the outcome of another. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180(1991). The Board will therefore revisit this issue after the disposition of the Veteran's claim for a jaw disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a VA opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's jaw pain. The examiner must be provided access to the Veteran's electronic claims file. If, after review of the claims file, the examiner determines that another VA examination is necessary, such must be scheduled, and the Veteran must be notified. After review of the record, the examiner is requested to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that a jaw disorder is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease to include the Veteran's alleged assault from May 1983. As no diagnosis has been assigned, the examiner must discuss the impact of jaw pain upon the Veteran's functional impairment of earning capacity. In this regard, it is important to note that functional impairment of earning capacity is ultimately a determination for adjudicators to make, however, information and impressions from the VA examiner will be helpful to adjudicators in understanding the effects of the Veteran's jaw pain. In offering any opinion, the examiner must consider the following: the Veteran may not be service-connected for any disability incurred during the period of service from November 1986 to January 1992, but such records may be considered to determine whether it provides evidence of a chronic jaw disability incurred during the period of service from July 1979 to July 1983; and the May 1983 jaw injury The VA examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions provided. The examiner must reconcile any opinion with the service treatment and personnel records, any post-service diagnoses, lay statements and testimony of the Veteran. If he or she rejects the lay evidence, an explanation must be provided, and the examiner should note that the mere passage of time without treatment is not a sufficient basis for finding that no relationship between a current disability and service exists. 2. After completing the requested actions, and any additional action deemed warranted, the AOJ should readjudicate the claims. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and an opportunity to respond thereto. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T.S. Willie 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.