Citation Nr: 21000365 Decision Date: 01/05/21 Archive Date: 01/05/21 DOCKET NO. 14-43 067 DATE: January 5, 2021 ORDER The claim of entitlement to service connection for a seizure disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is in a state of relative equipoise regarding whether a seizure disorder is secondary to service-connected residuals of traumatic brain injury (TBI). CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a seizure disorder are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1977 to October 1985. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision by a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In June 2017, the Veteran testified in a hearing before the Board. A transcript of the hearing has been included in the electronic record and has been reviewed. In June 2018 and October 2020, the Board remanded this matter for additional medical inquiry. The case is again before the Board for appellate review. Service Connection In August 2020, the RO found residuals of TBI service connected. The question before the Board is whether a seizure disorder is secondary to the TBI residuals. Laws and regulations Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence showing (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) proximately caused by or (b) proximately aggravated by service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the benefit of the doubt will be granted to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on the merits, the preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). Evidence and analysis The evidence in this matter consists of private and VA treatment records, lay statements from the Veteran, an October 2019 VA compensation examination report, and an October 2020 VA addendum report. For the reasons set forth below, a service connection finding is warranted. First, the evidence documents that the Veteran has a seizure disorder. This is noted in the VA reports. Second, the evidence is divided with regard to the question of whether the seizure disorder is secondary to service-connected residuals of TBI. (Continued on the next page)   Certain evidence counters the proposition that a seizure disorder resulted from TBI. The October 2019 VA examination report indicates that seizures resulted not from the in-service TBI but from drug and alcohol abuse, while the October 2020 VA examination report states that it is less than likely that the seizures relate to post-service TBI residuals. However, the October 2019 report did not address the impact of TBI residuals on neurological functioning since service. And in the rationale supporting the opinion against the claim, the October 2020 examiner actually supports the claim. In explaining the finding, the examiner stated that it would be speculative to connect TBI and seizures. But then the examiner indicated that “[h]ead trauma can cause seizures and is the most common cause in young adults” and that head trauma is among the common causes of seizures in “middle age.” This explanation undermines the opinion. See Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999) (the value of a physician’s statement is dependent, in part, upon the extent to which it reflects clinical data or other rationale to support the opinion). The Board also notes a statement provided by a private physician in August 2013 who, after treating the Veteran for seizures, indicated that he considered, among several possible causes, epilepsy and head trauma “as a possible cause of seizure in this patient.” Based on the foregoing, the Board cannot find that a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection. Accordingly, this is an appropriate case in which to invoke VA’s doctrine of reasonable doubt, grant the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, and grant the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Christopher McEntee, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.