Citation Nr: 21015873 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 16-19 065A DATE: March 18, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a dental disorder (claimed as residuals of dental trauma to the front teeth) for purposes of compensation is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1983 to July 1986. The Board notes that a claim for service connection for a dental condition is also considered a claim for VA outpatient dental treatment. Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 302, 306 (1993). However, in dental claims, the RO adjudicates the claim of service connection and the VA Medical Center adjudicates the claim for outpatient treatment. As this matter stems from an adverse RO determination, the appeal is limited to the issue of entitlement to service connection for a dental trauma for compensation purposes. A Board hearing was held in August 2019. Due to an audio malfunction, a transcript of the hearing was not produced. In January 2020, VA informed the Veteran of the audio malfunction and offered the opportunity for a second hearing. The Veteran did not respond within 30 days and therefore waived the opportunity for a second hearing. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a dental disorder (claimed as residuals of dental trauma to the front tooth) for purposes of compensation. In general, service connection will be granted for disability resulting from injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The dental conditions for which service-connected compensation benefits are available are set forth under 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Codes 9900-9916. The Veteran contends that he was in an accident in service. In his substantive appeal, he reported that while driving in an armor personnel carrier he hit his front teeth on an APC hatch. He reported that this accident occurred during a snowstorm in February 1985, while stationed in Germany. A dental service treatment record, dated in April 1985, notes a “possible fragment of a fractured root.” As noted above, service connection for compensation purposes is only warranted for certain dental conditions. Specifically, dental disabilities that may be awarded compensable disability ratings are set forth under 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. These disabilities include chronic osteomyelitis or osteoradionecrosis of the maxilla or mandible, loss of the mandible, nonunion or malunion of the mandible, limited temporomandibular motion, loss of the ramus, loss of the condyloid or coronoid processes, loss of the hard palate, loss of teeth due to the loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible and where the lost masticatory surface cannot be restored by suitable prosthesis, when the bone loss is a result of trauma or disease but not the result of periodontal disease. 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Codes 9900-9916. In this case, it is not clear whether the Veteran currently has a dental disability for which compensation may be paid, and, if so, whether it is due to in-service dental trauma. Therefore, the Board finds that competent medical evidence is required to resolve this matter. As such, a remand is required to accord the Veteran such an examination and opinion. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 175 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The Veteran should be scheduled for a dental examination by an appropriately qualified clinician. The examiner should clarify the nature of any current dental disability found to be present. Further, the examiner should express an opinion whether it is at least as likely as not such dental disability was caused by in-service dental trauma. Such an opinion should reflect consideration of the Veteran’s account of in-service dental trauma, as well as the documented in-service dental treatment in April 1985 which notes a “possible fragment of a fractured root.” A complete rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided, to include if the examiner determines an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. (Continued on the next page)   2. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraph, the Veteran’s claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. M. Clark, 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.