Citation Nr: 21062168 Decision Date: 10/06/21 Archive Date: 10/06/21 DOCKET NO. 15-37 959 DATE: October 6, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for headaches is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, his headaches are related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for headaches have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1973 to December 1974. In November 2018, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In May 2019, the Board, in pertinent part, remanded the issue on appeal for further development, and, in October 2020, denied the appeal. The Veteran appealed the October 2020 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In June 2021, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by representatives for both the Veteran and the VA Secretary, vacating the Board's decision as to the denial of service connection for headaches, and remanding the claim to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the JMPR. Headaches The Veteran seeks service connection for headaches, which he claims, in part, is due to an in-service motor vehicle accident. Specifically, he asserts that he struck his head and lost consciousness during a roll-over accident, and that he has endured headaches since service. Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In order to establish service connection for the claimed disorder, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Here, service treatment records reflect that the Veteran was involved in two motor vehicle accidents in service, one of which involved the truck he was riding in turning over. Post-service medical evidence includes multiple complaints of headaches, including recently an August 2014 VA treatment note describing "[h]eadaches, longstanding, mixed etiologies of migraines, sinus headaches, headaches post TBI," and an April 2018 VA treatment note indicating that the Veteran has had headaches for years. In May 2016, the Veteran underwent a private examination by Dr. R.H., wherein the examiner noted a review of the claims file. He recounted the multiple post-service notations of headaches and that such were related to his in-service acute traumatic injuries to the head sustained during his roll-over accident. In an August 2016 addendum, he further added that peer-reviewed medical literature indicates that a closed head injury with concussion is a documentable source for the development of post traumatic cephalgia. In August 2016, the Veteran's mother, a registered nurse, submitted an affidavit stating that the Veteran has suffered from headaches since service, and that such is a result of injuries he sustained in the military. In support of this, she described the Veteran's in-service injuries from his roll-over accident and his symptoms and medical treatment received immediately after discharge. Additionally, she attached copies of checks from 1975 written to cover the Veteran's medical expenses. The Board notes that the Veteran underwent a VA examination in January 2020 wherein the examiner found that the Veteran did not have a headache condition. However, the clinician failed to note the above evidence of record showing reports of headaches. Additionally, she incorrectly stated that the Veteran was not service-connected for a cervical spine disorder. Given these deficiencies, the Board finds that her opinion is of no probative value. Conversely, the medical opinions from Dr. R.H. are afforded high probative value as it was made after a review of the relevant evidence and interview with the Veteran and contains a rationale for the conclusion reached. Additionally, the Board accords probative weight to the statements made by the Veteran's mother. As a registered nurse, she is competent to diagnose a medical disability and provide an etiology opinion. Her statements were supported by first-hand knowledge of the Veteran's medical history and supported by documentation of treatment received in 1975 following service separation. Accordingly, resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for headaches is warranted. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Department of Veterans Affairs 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.