Citation Nr: 0003208 Decision Date: 02/09/00 Archive Date: 02/15/00 DOCKET NO. 94-27 756 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Newark, New Jersey THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a dental condition for the purpose of receiving VA outpatient dental treatment. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Thomas J. Reed, Attorney WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. T. Jones, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1971 to June 1979. This case came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 1994 RO rating decision that denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a dental condition for the purpose of receiving VA outpatient dental treatment. In an April 1997 decision, the Board denied the claim. The veteran then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). By a May 1999 order, the Court vacated the Board's decision and remanded the case to the Board. The case was subsequently returned to the Board, and in January 2000 the Board received additional argument and evidence from the veteran's attorney. REMAND In its May 1999 order, the Court said that the only relevant eligibility category under which the veteran could obtain VA outpatient dental treatment was the category which pertains to a veteran who has a dental condition that is the result of a combat wound or other service trauma. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1712(a)(1)(C) (West 1991 & Supp 1999); 38 C.F.R. § 17.161(c) (1999). The veteran essentially contends that treatment during service for two front teeth, which were missing when he entered service, constituted service trauma, and that he currently has a dental condition due to such service trauma. The Court's May 1999 order requires further development of the evidence, including additional efforts to obtain the veteran's service dental records, assisting him in obtaining a statement from a former VA dentist (Dr. Barbara Mitchell, who performed a September 1992 VA dental examination), and providing him with a current VA dental examination. Accordingly, the Board remands the case to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should contact the National Personnel Records Center and request copies of all of the veteran's service dental records. 2. The RO should ask Dr. Barbara Mitchell (who performed the September 1992 VA dental examination but reportedly no longer works for the VA) to provide a statement on the nature of the veteran's dental treatment in service and any relationship to a current dental condition. See veteran's April 1994 statement in support of claim in which he alleges Dr. Mitchell said the treatment in service was poorly done, etc. 3. The RO should have the veteran undergo another VA dental examination to determine all current dental conditions and their etiology. The claims folder must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner. All missing and diseased teeth and other dental conditions should be identified. Based on examination findings and historical records, the examiner should give a medical opinion, with full rationale, as to which dental conditions, if any, were caused by dental trauma in service. 4. After assuring compliance with the May 1999 Court order and the present Board remand, the RO should review the veteran's claim for service connection for a dental condition for the purpose of receiving VA outpatient dental treatment. The RO should particularly address the question of whether service connection for a dental condition, for treatment purposes, is warranted based on alleged service trauma. If the RO denies the claim, the veteran and his representative should be issued a supplement statement of the case, and given an opportunity to respond, before the case is returned to the Board. During the remand, the appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded to the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1999) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44- 8.45 and 38.02-38.03. L. W. TOBIN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1999).