Citation Nr: 21069949 Decision Date: 11/22/21 Archive Date: 11/22/21 DOCKET NO. 15-31 942 DATE: November 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for headaches is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from March 1994 to June 1994. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2014 rating decision of an Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Board denied the Veteran's appeal in October 2020. In November 2020, the Veteran moved for the Board to reconsider its decision. In February 2021, the Board denied the Veteran's motion. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In September 2021, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). Pursuant to the JMPR, the Veteran vacated the Board's decision that denied service connection for a headache disability, and it remanded the matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the JMPR. Remand is warranted. In the JMPR, the parties agreed the Board erred in October 2020 when it found the Veteran did not have a headache disorder, as this expressly contravened a January 2016 Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). In this DBQ, Dr. H.S. diagnosed the Veteran with tension headaches. Dr. H.S. then attempted to etiologically link the Veteran's tension headaches to his service-connected adjustment disorder. He opined: medical research states that patients with mental health conditions are more likely to develop headaches because pain and mood are actually regulated by the same part of the brain. It is well established that mental disorders both cause and aggravate headaches, the relationship is discussed in the article 'Depression in Headaches: Chronification.' Dr. H.S. attached the first page of this medical journal article to his opinion. This page discusses migraine, not tension, headaches. Because the article focuses on a type of headache different from what Dr. H.S. diagnosed the Veteran and no VA examination was conducted in this appeal, the Board finds remand is necessary for additional development. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed headache disorder. In addition to the customary examination, the examiner should opine: a) Has the Veteran had migraine headaches at any point since he filed his claim in November 2013? Please explain your answer. b) If the answer to (a) is yes, is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's service-connected adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, as diagnosed by a November 2020 VA examiner, CAUSED his migraine headaches? Why or why not? c) If the answer to (a) is yes, is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's service-connected adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, as diagnosed by a November 2020 VA examiner, AGGRAVATES his migraine headaches? Why or why not? d) If the answer to (a) is no, is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's service-connected adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, as diagnosed by a November 2020 VA examiner, CAUSED his tension headaches, as diagnosed in a January 2016 DBQ? Why or why not? e) If the answer to (a) is no, is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's service-connected adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, as diagnosed by a November 2020 VA examiner, AGGRAVATES his tension headaches, as diagnosed in a January 2016 DBQ? Why or why not? (Continued on the next page) In answering these questions, expressly address whether you agree or disagree with the January 2016 opinion from Dr. H.S. regarding the headache claim and the medical journal article, "Depression in Headaches: Chronification." Please explain your answer. A complete rationale should be provided for the opinions rendered. Tiffany Dawson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Sopko, 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.