Citation Nr: 18150943 Decision Date: 11/16/18 Archive Date: 11/16/18 DOCKET NO. 15-35 738 DATE: November 16, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a traumatic brain injury, to include headaches and memory loss, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has residuals of a traumatic brain injury, to include memory loss and headaches, due to a disease, injury, or event in service, to include an April 1982 motor vehicle accident. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for residuals of a traumatic brain injury, to include memory loss and headaches, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a) (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from September 1977 to August 1981 and from August 1981 to September 1984. In his August 2015 VA Form 9, Substantive Appeal, the Veteran indicated that he wanted a Video Conference Board Hearing. That hearing was scheduled for October 19, 2018. The Veteran did not attend that hearing and has not provided good cause as to why a hearing should be rescheduled. Accordingly, the Veteran’s request for a hearing is deemed withdrawn. Entitlement to Service Connection for Residuals of a Traumatic Brain Injury, to Include Headaches and Memory Loss The Veteran contends that he experiences headaches and memory loss as residuals of a traumatic brain injury he incurred in an April 1982 motor vehicle accident. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran’s VA treatment records document current complaints of headaches and memory loss, and evidence shows that the Veteran suffered a scalp laceration in an April 1982 motor vehicle accident, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s headaches and memory loss began in service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include the April 1982 motor vehicle accident. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service treatment records establish that the Veteran was in a motor vehicle accident, and that he incurred an eight-inch laceration to his scalp. However, those records also indicate that there was no fracture to the skull and, more importantly, that he had a normal neurological evaluation. He was oriented times three and normal motor and sensory responses. There are multiple findings at that time that the Veteran had an essentially normal examination with the exception of the laceration injury and being in mild distress. VA treatment records first document complaints of headaches and memory loss more than three decades after the April 1982 motor vehicle accident. According to January 2014 VA treatment records, the Veteran reported the onset of extreme headaches in the weeks immediately preceding the January 2014 treatment. Complaints of memory loss are first documented in April 2013 VA treatment records. Furthermore, in July 2014, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran did not incur a traumatic brain injury in April 1982 and that the Veteran’s headaches and memory loss were less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the April 1982 motor vehicle accident. The examiner concluded that the Veteran did not suffer a traumatic brain injury in April 1982 because he did not have any altered consciousness or neurologic symptoms. Because the Veteran did not suffer a traumatic brain injury, the VA examiner concluded that his memory loss is unrelated to the April 1982 motor vehicle accident. The examiner noted that lacerations do not alter memory. With respect to headaches, the Veteran reported the onset of headaches in the years after the accident. According the examiner, headaches related to head trauma typically begin at or just after the event. He, therefore, concluded that the Veteran’s headaches are not related to the April 1982 motor vehicle accident. The examiner’s opinion is probative because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides clear explanations for the examiner’s opinion. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Veteran disputes the examiner’s conclusion that the Veteran did not have altered consciousness or neurological symptoms following the motor vehicle accident. In his August 2015 Notice of Disagreement and September 2015 VA Form 9, Substantive Appeal, the Veteran contends that he does not recall being pulled from the car, being in the ambulance or the ambulance ride, though he does remember the lights overhead as he was being wheeled into the emergency room. According to the Veteran, he did not understand what was happening at the time; however, it is his opinion that most logical explanation for the gaps in his memory is that he lost consciousness at the crash site. He also notes that he did not have a history of headaches or memory loss prior to the motor vehicle accident. The Veteran is competent to report on his medical history and that his memory of the aftermath of the April 1982 motor vehicle accident is incomplete. He is not, however, competent to provide an opinion on whether he incurred a traumatic brain injury or whether his headaches and memory loss are residuals of a traumatic brain injury or are otherwise etiologically related to the April 1982 motor vehicle accident. The issue is medically complex and requires knowledge that the Veteran does not possess based on the evidence of record. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 & n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, the medical evidence of record is more consistent with the examiner’s opinion that the Veteran did not incur a traumatic brain injury in April 1982. The contemporaneous emergency care and treatment report clearly describe the Veteran as being oriented to person, place, and time and having normal motor and sensory function. The emergency department treatment records document a laceration on the Veteran’s right scalp, negative skull films, and no other injuries. When the Veteran was discharged from the hospital on April 5, 1982, the narrative summary of the care that he received noted that the Veteran was acutely traumatized, alert, cooperative, and in mild distress without being “shocky” immediately following the accident. The physical examination was within normal limits except for a large flap laceration on the right parietal scalp. The Board also notes that the Veteran reported the laceration without identifying memory loss, headaches, or the loss of consciousness or neurological symptoms in his August 1981 separation examination. April 2013 treatment records document a treating physician’s opinion that stress due to the Veteran’s job search was the likely cause of his short-term memory loss; the Veteran endorsed the physician’s opinion. In light of the foregoing, the weight of the competent, probative evidence or record is against the Veteran’s claim. Accordingly, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply, see 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 53, and service connection for the residuals of a traumatic brain injury, to include headaches and memory loss, is denied. Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Douglas M. Humphrey, Associate Counsel