Citation Nr: 21067704 Decision Date: 11/05/21 Archive Date: 11/05/21 DOCKET NO. 15-02 865 DATE: November 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 30 percent for cluster headaches is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Air Force from June 1982 to December 1992. He had additional service in the Air Force Reserve from September 1993 to June 2011. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2011 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a June 2018 decision, the Board denied a rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran's cluster headaches. The Veteran then appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), resulting in a February 2019 Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). A February 2019 CAVC Order remanded the matter for compliance with the JMPR. In November 2019 the case returned to the Board and was remanded for additional development. Following a new VA examination, the case returned to the Board in January 2021 and a 30 percent rating was granted Following this increase to a 30 percent rating, the Veteran again appealed the Board decision to CAVC. This resulted in a July 2021 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR). A July 2021 CAVC Order determined that the VA examiner from November 2020 failed to comply with all of the remand directives. Additionally, CAVC found the Board did not provide adequate reasons and bases for their denial of a rating in excess of 30 percent. CAVC determined that a new VA examination was necessary in order to comply with prior remand directives. Increased Rating - Cluster Headaches The CAVC JMR requires this Board to obtain a new examination that would review the Veteran's submitted February 2019 headache log. Any future Board decision must also discuss various pieces of additional evidence including: the private opinion which found a 50 percent rating was warranted, the Veteran's headache log, and the Veteran's lay statements regarding his usage of approximately 480 hours of FMLA leave due to his headaches. The CAVC determined that the Veteran's VA examination from November 2020 failed to comply with the June 2019 remand directives. Compliance with remand directives is not discretionary, and failure to comply with the terms of a remand necessitates remand for corrective action. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In order to comply with the JMR, as well as the prior remand directives, a new VA examination was ordered by CAVC. Therefore, the Board will remand the matter to obtain a new VA examination. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Notify the Veteran that he may submit additional lay statements from himself and from other individuals who have first-hand knowledge of the nature, extent and severity of his headache disorder and the impact of the condition on his ability to work. The Veteran should be provided an appropriate amount of time to submit this lay evidence. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination, by an examiner with appropriate expertise to determine the current level of severity of the Veteran's cluster headaches. The examiner should discuss the functional impact of the Veteran's cluster headaches. The examiner must discuss all manifestation of the Veteran's headache disorder. The examiner should discuss the Veteran's submitted February 2019 headache log. The examiner should also discuss the frequency and duration of the Veteran's prostrating attacks. If the Veteran's headaches are found to be very frequent and completely prostrating, describe their impact on the Veteran's ability to work. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Andrew Ledman II 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.