Citation Nr: 21010759 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 19-10 054 DATE: February 25, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a brain disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1960 to February 1964. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a brain disorder is remanded. The Board denied the above claim in November 2019. In September 2020, pursuant to a Joint Motion to Remand (JMR), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC or the Court) vacated that decision and returned the matter to the Board. The JMR states, first, the Board found that the Veteran’s service treatment records do not document a brain disorder, head trauma, or any other relevant symptoms, complaints, or other notations. However, in-service medical records document a concussion as a result of a motor vehicle accident. (An October 1962 service hospital discharge note states motor vehicle accident caused a concussion and the Veteran had become drowsy and prone to sleeping excessively afterwards. A January 1963 treatment note also reports the car accident and that the Veteran was thrown from the car and lost consciousness for 12 hours.) Second, the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for finding the August 2019 private opinion by a Dr. J.R. not probative. In the November 2019 decision, the Board found the August 2019 private medical opinion of limited probative value as there is no indication that the in-service traumatic brain injury upon which it was based occurred. Finally, the JMR states the Board should consider whether a new VA examination or medical opinion is warranted to address the evidence of in-service head trauma. A VA examination occurred in March 2019, which found the Veteran did not have cerebral hemorrhage due to an in-service car accident in 1963, but did not address any other brain disorders, to include residuals of head trauma. Currently, the claim is service connection for any brain disorder. The private August 2019 private opinion reports that the Veteran had multiple contributing factors to his current diagnosis, but it is reasonably more likely than not that his TBI in service is a contributor. She went on to explain that she could not determine to what extent that the in-service TBI contributed to the cerebral hemorrhage and residuals, but that there is a direct connection between prior head trauma and cerebral hemorrhage. However, Dr. J.R. did not reviewed the Veteran’s service treatment records. Further, there are inconsistencies in this opinion, such as listing, as the medical opinion, that the Veteran contends that mild neurocognitive disorder is the result of traumatic brain injury. Given the above, an additional VA opinion is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule an examination regarding any brain disorder, to include residuals of trauma. The medical professional is asked to provide an opinion regarding whether it is as at least as likely as not that any brain disorder (to include residual of trauma) is due to service, to include a motor vehicle accident in 1962. Specifically, an October 1962 service hospital discharge note reports a motor vehicle accident caused the Veteran to suffer a concussion and a January 1963 service treatment record stating the Veteran was thrown from the car and lost consciousness for 12 hours. (We make no comment regarding possible conflict between the 1962 and 1963 reports.) H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Yoffe, 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.