Citation Nr: 21010129 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 17-26 653 DATE: February 24, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a dental condition to include but not limited to tooth loss, bleeding gums and painful teeth misalignment due to oral trauma for VA compensation purposes is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a dental condition for which service connection for compensation purposes can be granted. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The Veteran's dental condition does not meet the requirements for service connection for compensation purposes. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1712, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.103, 3.159, 3.381, 4.150 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from June 1977 to June 1981. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a hearing in December 2019. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. Additionally, evidence has been associated with the Veteran’s claims folder included with a waiver of RO consideration. With respect to the Veteran’s dental claim, it is unclear whether he may be seeking entitlement to VA outpatient dental treatment. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) specifically has held that a claim for service connection for a dental disorder is also a claim for VA outpatient dental treatment. Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 302 (1993). His present claim has been treated by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) as a straightforward claim for service connection and compensation. The issue of entitlement to outpatient dental treatment has not been adjudicated by VA, and is not currently in appellate status. As such, the Board finds that if the Veteran intended to file a claim for dental treatment, then he should file such a claim. Duties to Notify and Assist VA has a duty to notify the claimant and the claimant's representative, if any, of any information, and any medical or lay evidence, not previously provided to the Secretary that is necessary to substantiate the claim. This notice must specifically inform the claimant of which portion, if any, of the evidence is to be provided by the claimant and which part, if any, VA will attempt to obtain on behalf of the claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b). In a letter mailed to the Veteran in February 2016, prior to the initial adjudication of his service connection claims, VA satisfied this duty. VA also has a duty to assist a claimant in the development of his claims. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). Here, reasonable efforts have been made to assist the Veteran in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate his claims. The pertinent evidence of record includes the Veteran's statements, service treatment records, and post-service VA and private treatment records. As noted above, the Veteran was afforded a hearing before the undersigned VLJ for his claims on appeal. Here, during the December 2019 Board hearing, the VLJ clarified the issues on appeal; clarified the concept of service connection and identified potential evidentiary defects which included the etiology of the Veteran's dental condition; and clarified the type of evidence that would support the Veteran's claims. Thus, the actions of the VLJ supplement the VCAA and comply with any related duties owed during a hearing set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.103. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "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). The Board finds that under the circumstances of this case, VA has satisfied the notification and assistance provisions of the law, and that no further action need be undertaken on the Veteran's behalf. 1. Service connection for a dental condition to include but not limited to tooth loss, bleeding gums and painful teeth misalignment due to oral trauma The Veteran contends that he is entitled to compensation for a dental condition due to oral trauma that occurred during active service. Dental conditions for which service-connected compensation benefits are available and set forth under 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Codes 9900-9916. These conditions include loss of whole or part of the mandible, nonunion or malunion of the mandible, loss of part of the ramus, loss of whole or part of the maxilla, nonunion or malunion of the maxilla, loss of the condyloid or coronoid process, or loss of any part of the hard palate. Id. Compensation is also available for loss of teeth only if such is due to loss of substance of body of maxilla or mandible. See Simmington v. West, 11 Vet. App. 41 (1998). For loss of the teeth, bone loss through trauma or disease, such as osteomyelitis, must be shown for compensable purposes. The loss of the alveolar process as a result of periodontal disease is not considered disabling. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Code 9913. In addition, to be compensable, the lost masticatory surface for any tooth cannot be restorable by a suitable prosthesis. Id. Treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease will be considered service connected solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for outpatient dental treatment and cannot be considered for compensation purposes. 38 U.S.C. § 1712 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.381, 4.150 (2017). The Veteran was provided a VA dental examination in April 2016. The examiner reported that a scan of the mandible revealed no abnormal tissue or hard tissue abnormalities except a bony island on the right mandibular body which appeared to be a tooth. The VA examiner further reported that there was no anatomical loss of bony injury of the maxilla and that masticatory surfaces could be restored by a suitable prosthesis. The VA examiner concluded that the loss of teeth was not due to trauma or a disease and that there was no evidence to support the loss of teeth, bleeding gums, painful teeth or misalignment. The examiner reported that the Veteran’s service medical records did not support the currently diagnosed conditions and that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service event. In January 2020, Veteran’s dentist sent a statement stating Veteran’s best options for prosthesis. The dentist stated the best locations for implants, but also that upper and lower removable dentures might be a potential option. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4,150, Diagnostic Codes 9900-916 as discussed above, the evidence of record, in particular the April 2016 examination, indicates that the Veteran does not have a dental disability for which service connection can be granted. The Board Further notes that there are no dental findings contrary to the April 2016 VA examination. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran and he did not experience a compensable dental condition due to any in-service dental trauma or disease. Thus, service connection may not be established for compensation purpose for missing or damaged teeth, or periodontal disease under 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Konieczny, Adam 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.