BVA9500106 DOCKET NO. 93-07 619 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from a decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of dental trauma, for the purpose of obtaining VA outpatient dental treatment. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Keith W. Allen, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June 1942 to January 1946. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 1991 dental rating action by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida, which denied the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of dental trauma, for the purpose of obtaining VA outpatient dental treatment. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that VA should be responsible for repairing his dental bridge because a dentist in service extracted one of his teeth that was anchoring the bridge, causing it to become loose. He points out that his bridge has been repaired since service, but at his own expense, and he does not believe that he should have to pay for it to be repaired again. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the veteran has not presented evidence of a well- grounded claim for service connection for residuals of dental trauma, for the purpose of obtaining VA outpatient dental treatment. FINDING OF FACT The veteran has not presented evidence of dental trauma in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of dental trauma is not well-grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1712(b)(1)(C) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 17.123(c) (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The threshold question to be answered in this case is whether the veteran has submitted evidence of a well-grounded claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990). A well-grounded claim is defined as a "plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation." Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). If a veteran does not satisfy his initial evidentiary burden of submitting evidence showing his claim is well-grounded, then there is no duty on VA to assist him in developing evidence pertinent to his claim and, as a matter of law, his claim must be dismissed. Although a veteran's claim need not be conclusive to be well- grounded, it must be accompanied by evidence, not just mere allegations made by him or his representative. See Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 611 (1992). In this respect, it should be especially noted that lay assertions concerning medical and dental matters which require expert training and knowledge, do not constitute competent evidence to render a claim well- grounded. See Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1992). Service connection may be granted for dental conditions of individual teeth, incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(a). In August 1949, within a few years after the veteran was discharged from service, service connection was granted for several of his teeth (numbers 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, and 29), for the purpose of receiving VA outpatient dental treatment; the service-connected teeth were rated noncompensable. Records show that he later received dental treatment from VA in August and September of that same year. During this episode of treatment, it was noted that tooth number 14 had been extracted while he was in service and that a partial bridge which had been fitted in this area of his oral cavity needed repairing. The partial denture was repaired. Other treatment given at that time consisted of cleaning, filling, and extraction of teeth. Although service connection was granted for several of the veteran's teeth in 1949, for the purpose of his obtaining VA outpatient dental treatment, it was not granted on the basis of dental trauma. Service connection for a dental condition, unrelated to trauma, does not confer indefinite eligibility for VA outpatient dental care. VA legal authority provides that as to each noncompensable service-connected dental condition, a determination will be made as to whether it was due to a combat wound or other service trauma. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(e) (1993). The significance of a finding that a noncompensable service-connected dental condition is due to dental trauma, as opposed to other causes, is that the VA provides any reasonably necessary dental treatment for conditions which are attributable to the service trauma (38 C.F.R. § 17.123(c)), whereas other service-connected noncompensable dental conditions are typically subject to limitations of one-time treatment and timely application after service. See U.S.C.A. § 1712; 38 C.F.R. § 17.123. The veteran is seeking service connection for residuals of dental trauma, for the purpose of obtaining additional VA outpatient dental treatment to repair his dental bridge. At his October 1992 hearing, he indicated that he had the bridge when he entered service, but that it became loose after a tooth which anchored it was extracted while he was still on active duty. He denied having sustained dental trauma, per se, during service, such as by falling or being hit in his mouth. The veteran has not presented evidence of a plausible claim for service connection for residuals of dental trauma. The type of "trauma" he alleges, that is, routine dental extraction of a diseased tooth, is not the type of "combat wound[] or other service trauma" contemplated by the governing statutory provision, 38 U.S.C.A. § 1712(b)(1)(C). The veteran has not alleged any other basis on which he might be entitled to VA outpatient dental care, such as by having a service-connected compensable dental disability, prisoner-of-war status, a dental condition which has been professionally determined to be aggravating a service-connected medical disability, etc. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1712 and 38 C.F.R. § 17.123 for a listing of the various classes of VA outpatient dental treatment. Since the veteran has not alleged having sustained trauma in service of the type contemplated by the governing VA legal authority, his claim is implausible and incapable of substantiation. It therefore is not well-grounded and, as a matter of law, must be dismissed. The RO is advised that decisions on the merits on this claim prior to and including this decision are to be regarded as dismissals, without finality as to the merits. See Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993), Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136 (1994). As finality on the merits does not attach, there can be no prejudice to the veteran in dismissing the claim, even though the RO decision was on the merits. Compare Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 384 (1993). ORDER The veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of dental trauma, for the purpose of obtaining VA outpatient dental treatment, is dismissed as not well-grounded. 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. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.