Military dentists removed all but three of Thomas Nielson's teeth, mostly without anesthesia, while he was serving overseas in the Korean War. When he returned to the United States, they removed the three that remained.
Pause to think about that for one moment. Dentists removed most of his teeth without anesthesia. Now think about this: would that have been traumatic?
Evidently, not traumatic enough. On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims rejected Mr. Nielson's claim that he was entitled to VA outpatient treatment and dental appliances. Represented by Washington, D.C. attorney Kirsten V.K. Robbins, with the firm Goodwin Proctor, Nielson asserted he was eligible for the VA dental services, which cover conditions due to combat injuries or "other service trauma."
The VA said otherwise; as the appeals court noted:
"The VA General Counsel opined that 'merely to have had dental extractions during service is not tantamount to dental trauma.'"
Suits & Sentences repeats: no anesthesia.
Nonetheless, the appeals court concluded that the real issue was Nielson's periodental infection, which required removal of the teeth. Opined the court in an opinion that hurts just read:
"The extraction of Mr. Nielson's teeth as a result of periodontal disease is not 'service trauma' as contemplated by (VA law). The Court cannot expand the plain meaning in a manner that would include extractions necessitated by disease. There has been no finding that Mr. Nielson's dental condition resulted from an injury or wound violently produced in the armed services."
I take a back seat to no one in my support for our military men (see my 4/27/09 BlawgReview tribute to my late father - USMC Lt. J. Gene Hochfelder - who served on Iwo Jima); however, in this case the law is clear and fair. The veteran here had some teeth pulled (yes, without anesthesia) and dentures provided while serving in Korea nearly 40 years ago. Now, he seeks new dentures. The problem is his coverage kicks in now only if the need for new dentures is due to a combat injury or other service trauma. It would be an improper reading of a plain statute to infer that the legislature meant to include the trauma of an extraction either in the term "combat injuries" or the term "other service trauma," don't you think?
Posted by: John Hochfelder | May 22, 2009 at 05:44 AM