BVA9506383 DOCKET NO. 93-09 068 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss, chronic ear disease, and chronic gum disease. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard F. Williams, Counsel REMAND The veteran served on active duty from April 1943 to April 1946. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a May 1991 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Detroit, Michigan, denying service connection for hearing loss, and from a May 1992 rating decision denying service connection for a left ear disorder (later expanded to chronic ear disease) and "gum disease (Vincent’s stomatitis)." With regard to the latter condition, the rating stated that "[c]urrent VA regulations provide that this condition is considered to be acute and transitory and may not be service-connected." The Board notes that a May 1947 dental rating decision found, only for the purpose of authorizing dental treatment, that Vincent’s stomatitis was incurred in service. An August 1989 dental rating decision, again for dental treatment only, found that the veteran had incurred trauma to teeth nos. 7, 10, and 19 in service. It is not clear from the record what benefit the veteran is seeking by way of his claim for service connection for Vincent’s stomatitis -- treatment, compensation, or other. He is invited to clarify this matter with the help of his representative. At the time of the May 1992 rating decision, Vincent’s stomatitis was listed in 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Code 9913 (1992), ratable as 0 percent disabling. Service connection for this condition was subject to certain limitations expressed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.382(c) (1992), but "favorable action" was permitted. Thus the rating decision was erroneous in stating that Vincent’s stomatitis "may not be service-connected." The rating decision was also somewhat prescient, for a regulation now provides that Vincent’s stomatitis is not a disabling condition and may be considered service-connected solely for the purpose of determining entitlement to dental examinations or outpatient dental treatment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.149 (1994). The veteran is entitled to have the most favorable version of the law applied to his claim, which was pending when the law was changed. Karnas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 308 (1991). Accordingly, the claim must be readjudicated, using the analysis provided in § 3.382(c). To do so will require further development, for which the case is remanded to the RO: 1. The RO should ask the veteran to identify all sources of dental treatment after 1950. Those sources should be asked to provide copies of their records. 2. The veteran should be given a thorough dental examination to determine if he has Vincent’s stomatitis or any residuals of that disease. The examiner should review the service medical and dental records and post-service records of dental treatment and offer an opinion as to whether or not the service records demonstrate "chronicity, continuity of treatment, or the residual thereof, that is, periodontoclasia or pyorrhea," § 3.382(c), to an extent that it is at least as likely as not that the veteran now has a condition that began in service. After RO review, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The remaining issues are deferred pending these actions. J. E. DAY Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. 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) (1994).