The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's dental disorder is related to service, specifically an assault resulting in a skull fracture. The VA examiner was unable to verify if there was any dental injury during service and needs further clarification from the Veteran's lay history.
The deciding factor: The VA examiner could not determine with certainty if the Veteran's current dental disability had its onset in service due to insufficient medical records, but acknowledged the Veteran's lay statements regarding his in-service assault and symptoms.
- Claimed conditions
- periodontal disease, loss of teeth, gingival recession
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- April 10, 2023
- Citation
- 23021828
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. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 23021828.
What this means for you
A remand is not a loss. The Board sent the case back for more development — often a new exam or missing records — before making a final decision. Many remands later end in a grant, and the decision spells out exactly what the Board wanted to see.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Dismissed
The Veteran withdrew his appeal for compensation under 38 USC § 1151 for loss of teeth, and the appeal is dismissed.
- Granted
The Veteran's periodontal disease is service-connected for treatment purposes only, given his current 100% schedular evaluation.
- 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.
- 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.
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.