The Board denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for bone loss with loss of teeth due to VA treatment, finding no indication that the proximate cause was carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, a similar instance of fault on the part of VA, or an event not reasonably foreseeable.
The deciding factor: The medical evidence did not show inadequate care by VA and there was no documentation showing that VA treatment was excessive or abnormal for the Veteran's disorder.
- Claimed conditions
- bone loss, loss of teeth
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- November 5, 2020
- Citation
- 20071722
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,162 · Granted: 21% (granted or partly granted, in the indexed decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 20071722.
What this means for you
A final Board denial may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, generally within 120 days of the Board mailing date. A Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence is a separate option. Another Higher-Level Review of the Board decision is not available. Check your own notice: this historical decision does not set your deadline.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Dismissed
The Veteran withdrew his appeal for compensation under 38 USC § 1151 for loss of teeth, and the appeal is dismissed.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including prostate cancer, CAD, and bilateral lower extremity nerve damage, have rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. The Board has granted the TDIU.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's initial claim for an increased rating for loss of teeth was denied as her disability did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under Diagnostic Code 9913.,The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for telogen effluvium (claimed as hair loss) was also denied, as there is no evidence that she has lost all body hair.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for service connection due to insufficient examination and a pre-decisional duty to assist error. A new VA examination is required.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.