Citation Nr: 1007306 Decision Date: 02/26/10 Archive Date: 03/05/10 DOCKET NO. 06-24 398 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a head injury. REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Vietnam Veterans of America ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. L. Northcutt, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active military service from December 1973 to April 1974, and reserve service thereafter through approximately 1997. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2005 rating of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee. By way of background, the Veteran's claim was remanded for further evidentiary development in October 2008. Because the benefit sought remains denied, the claim has been returned to the Board. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required. REMAND The Veteran is seeking service connection for residual disabilities stemming from his reported head injury sustained in a service-related 1986 automobile accident. Specifically, the Veteran reports experiencing headaches, dizziness, and lightheadedness since his 1986 injury, and the Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report this symptomatology. Moreover, the Veteran's recent VA treatment records reflect his reports of experiencing headaches. Pursuant to the Board's October 2008 decision remanding the Veteran's claim for further development, the Board requested that the RO obtain, inter alia, the hospital records from the Veteran's 1986 injury. Thereafter, the Board instructed the RO to review all of the evidence of record and, if deemed necessary, obtain a VA examination to determine whether any current claimed disability is indeed related to the residuals of head or facial trauma incurred in the Veteran's 1986 motor vehicle accident. The RO has associated the Veteran's 1986 hospital treatment records with the Veteran's claims file, as requested, and these hospital treatment records reflect that the Veteran did indeed incur facial lacerations as the result of his 1986 motor vehicle accident. However, a review of the record reflects that the RO has continued to deny the Veteran's claims based on the RO's determination that no chronic residual impairment or disability resulted from his 1986 injuries. However, there is no medical opinion of record addressing whether the Veteran's injuries have resulted in any chronic disability, and the Board finds that given the Veteran's documented facial lacerations in service and his reports of headaches since that accident, a medical opinion is necessary to determine whether the Veteran has any chronic impairment as the result of his service-related injuries. See McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006) (where medical evidence suggests a nexus but is too equivocal or lacking in specificity to support a decision on the merits, an examination is warranted); Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 175 (1991) (the Board is prohibited from exercising its own independent judgment to resolve medical questions). Additionally, any outstanding VA medical treatment records should be obtained. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2) (2009). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of the Veteran's VA medical treatment records from January 2009 to the present. 2. Next, schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine if the Veteran has any chronic residual disabilities, including any facial scars and/or headaches, dizziness, and lightheadedness, that are the result of his claimed head injury during his 1986 service-related motor vehicle accident. The claims folder should be reviewed, including the treatment records reflecting the injuries sustained by the Veteran in (a) his service-related 1986 motor vehicle accident, (b) his nonservice-related 1999 motor vehicle accident, and (c) his nonservice-related July 2008 head injury. The examiner's review of the claims file should be reflected in the report provided. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed should also be provided. If the examiner determines that a medically-sound opinion cannot be reached, it is requested that an explanation as to why that is so be included. 3. When the requested development has been completed, the claim should be readjudicated. If the claim remains denied, provide the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case and allow an appropriate time for response. Thereafter, the claim should be returned to the Board for further review. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2009). ____________________________________________ MICHAEL MARTIN Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs