Citation Nr: 21001349 Decision Date: 01/07/21 Archive Date: 01/07/21 DOCKET NO. 16-23 359 DATE: January 7, 2021 REMANDED The issue of service connection for migraine headaches, to include as due to an undiagnosed illness, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from April 1988 to April 1992. In a July 2019 decision, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) denied the Veteran's claim. The matter has been returned to the Board following a joint motion for remand (JMR) filed by the parties before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The issue of service connection for migraine headaches, to include as due to an undiagnosed illness, is remanded. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. BACKGROUND FOR THE RO ADJUDICATOR: A VA examination was conducted in June 2013. The examiner noted the Veteran's diagnosis of migraine headaches dated back to 1997 but did not link his migraine condition to service. In addition to a lack of a medical nexus opinion, the examiner did not adequately consider an in-service report of headache and lay statements of continued headaches post-service. A remand is necessary to provide an adequate medical examination. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007); see also Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 105-06 (2012) (citing D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 104 (2008)). 2. Obtain any outstanding VA medical records and associate them with the claims file. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination, in accordance with established VA examination protocols, with the examiner who conducted the June 2013 VA examination. If the examiner is no longer available, schedule an examination with an appropriate VA examiner regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's migraine condition. The claims file and a copy of this remand will be made available to the examiner, who will acknowledge receipt and review of these materials. After a review of the record, AND BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS THROUGH THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION FOR REMAND, THE EXAMINER MUST ACCOMPLISH THE FOLLOWING: (a.) The examiner must opine as to whether the Veteran’s migraine headaches are related to his military service. (b.) The examiner must specifically opine as to whether the Veteran’s current migraine headaches are related to a June 23, 1990 in-service complaint of headache. (c.) IN RENDERING THE REQUESTED MEDICAL OPINIONS, the examiner must specifically address the lay statements of record, which report witnessing the Veteran’s experience with headaches since his separation from service. The examiner's attention is drawn to the following: * A June 23, 1990, service treatment record containing a complaint of headache. * In the March 1992 report of medical history at separation, the Veteran indicated that he did not then have or ever have frequent or severe headache. * Private treatment records indicate complaints of headache in 2005, 2008, 2011, and 2012. * A May 2013 letter from the Veteran's treating physician states that the Veteran has been diagnosed with headaches and has been under his care since 2005. * The June 2013 VA examination. * The June 2013 lay statement in which the Veteran’s sister reported witnessing the Veteran suffering severe headaches, which were not an issue prior to the Veteran’s active service. * The June 2013 lay statement in which a friend of the Veteran reported that the Veteran has had problems with migraines for the 13 years that she has known the Veteran. * The April 2016 lay statement in which a co-worker reported witnessing the Veteran suffering from headaches since 1992. * In the April 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran stated that he began experiencing migraines approximately one-year post-service. A thorough explanation must be provided for the opinions rendered. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, s/he should expressly indicate this and provide supporting rationale as to why the opinions cannot be made without resorting to speculation. The examiner is advised that by law, the mere statement that the claims folder was reviewed and/or the examiner has expertise is not sufficient to find the examination/opinion sufficient. 4. Following the review and any additional development deemed necessary, re-adjudicate the claim. Should the claim not be granted in its entirety, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and forward the claim to the Board for adjudication. The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). 5. 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 (Court) for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Timothy T. Emmart 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.