Citation Nr: 21028846 Decision Date: 05/12/21 Archive Date: 05/12/21 DOCKET NO. 13-04 524 DATE: May 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for periodontal disease and loss of teeth, for compensation purposes, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents and/or as secondary to service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active duty service in the United States Army from July 1967 to July 1969. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2010 rating decision. In August 2015, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript from that proceeding is associated with the claims file. In decisions dated in February 2016, September 2018, and November 2020, the Board remanded the case to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development and adjudication. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. 1. Entitlement to service connection for periodontal disease and loss of teeth, for compensation purposes, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents and/or as secondary to service-connected PTSD, is remanded. In response to the Board's November 2020 remand, the AOJ obtained a VA medical opinion in January 2021. In the March 2021 Informal Hearing Presentation, the representative asserted that the licensing record of the post-remand VA examiner revealed that he had at least once instance of public discipline in Alabama. The representative requested to be provided with the dental board and VA privileging and disciplinary records of the post-remand VA examiner in addition to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) record. The Board notes that absent some challenge to the expertise of a VA medical expert, it is unnecessary for VA to affirmatively establish that expert's competency. See Francway v. Wilkie, 940 F.3d 1304, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2019). This reliance on the competency of a VA examiner is overcome when the Veteran raises the issue of competency. See id. at 1308. However, the requirement that a Veteran raise the issue of the competency of a medical examiner "must be offset by 'the ability to secure from the VA the information necessary to raise the competency challenge.'" Fears v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 308, 317 (2019) (quoting Francway v. Wilkie, 930 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Consequently, once a claimant requests information about an examiner's qualifications, the duty to assist mandates that the claimant "has the right, absent unusual circumstances, to the curriculum vitae and other information about qualifications of a medical examiner." Id. Accordingly, on remand, to the extent possible, the examiner's curriculum vitae in addition to the records specifically requested by the representative should be obtained, associated with the record, and provided to the Veteran and his representative for review. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Contact the VA examiner who provided the January 2021 VA medical opinion related to the Veteran's service connection claim for periodontal disease and loss of teeth, and request that he provide a copy of his resume/CV. Upon receipt of such, associate it with the record and provide the Veteran and his representative a copy thereof. If the requested resume/CV is not obtainable, the Veteran and his representative should be notified and the reasons for such should be documented in the record. 3. Provide the Veteran and his representative with a copy of the dental board and VA privileging and disciplinary records in addition to the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) record for the VA examiner who provided the January 2021 VA medical opinion related to the Veteran's service connection claim for periodontal disease and loss of teeth. If the requested documents are not obtainable, the Veteran and his representative should be notified and the reasons for such should be documented in the record. 4. Then readjudicate the claim. If this benefit is not granted, the Veteran must be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given an appropriate opportunity to respond. If necessary, the case should be returned to the Board for further consideration. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K.C. Spragins, 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.