Citation Nr: 21020865 Decision Date: 04/08/21 Archive Date: 04/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-22 207 DATE: April 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for dental condition is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a dental condition for which compensation can be granted. CONCLUSION OF LAW 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 February 1990 to November 1994. This case comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional office (RO). 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 September 2014, prior to the initial adjudication of his service connection claims, the 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, post-service VA records and post-service VA examination. In an attempt to receive additional evidence and discuss the February 2015 Notice of Disagreement the VA has attempted to reach out to Veteran several times. The VA decision review officer has documented attempting to call the Veteran on February 23, February 24, and February 25, 2016 which the Veteran did not answer the phone. Further the VA has attempted to hold various hearings to obtain additional evidence for the Veteran. The first hearing was a video conference hearing held at the Denver RO on June 12, 2017. Veteran was reported as a no show. The second hearing was another video conference hearing held at the Denver RO on May 20, 2019. Veteran was reported as a no show. The third hearing was a virtual hearing scheduled on December 14, 2020. Veteran once again, was reported as a no show. 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 Dental Condition The Veteran contends that he is entitled to compensation for a dental condition due to oral trauma that occurred during active service. Because the Veteran had Gulf War service, the Board has considered the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1117. The law provides for a grant of service connection for a qualifying disability that is due to an undiagnosed illness or an unexplained multisystem illness. Here, the Veteran has only complained of tooth issues and therefore this provision does not apply. 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). On Veteran’s October 1994 discharge examination, it was noted that Veteran did not report any problems or issues. Veteran’s teeth were examined and were categorized as type 2 class 2 which required non-urgent dental treatment or reevaluation for oral conditions. On an October 1990 medical note, it was noted that Veteran’s tooth was knocked out by a broom. The note indicated that a pulpectomy on tooth #9 was listed as the resulting procedure. On a later medical note from October 1990, the examiner noted that a #9 pulpectomy was completed. The note stated that the procedure was as a result of trauma and instructed Veteran to return to the clinic for a #9 tooth filling. The Veteran was treated on January 1992 due to a darkening of the cervix of crown #9. The Board notes that Veteran’s post-service VA records only mention care related to the Veteran’s teeth once on September 2014. The medical note states that there was plaque on the crown of #13 tooth, but no other teeth were specifically mentioned during the examination. Under the note’s review of systems, the examiner noted that a crown of a front tooth was injured and repaired in Veteran’s military service. On March 25, 2016, the VA provided a medical examination to determine Veteran’s teeth etiology. The VA examiner reviewed the file and conducted an examination, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with cracked tooth. The examiner stated that the Veteran has had endodontic treatment of tooth #9 with post and core placement. The Veteran was noted to be missing the crown from tooth #9. The VA examiner further stated that x-rays showed that Veteran does not have loss of substance of the maxilla due to the loss of tooth #9. The examiner acknowledged that the Veteran did have traumatic damage to the tooth, but that any ongoing problems are associated with the repair that was conducted. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4,150, Diagnostic Codes 9900-916 as discussed above, the evidence of record, in particular the March 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 March 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.