Citation Nr: 21014082 Decision Date: 03/11/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 10-12 151 DATE: March 11, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for memory loss (claimed as residuals of a head injury, including headaches, memory loss, and cerebral atrophy) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1969 to January 1971. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeal (Board) on appeal from a March 2008 rating decision issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board previously remanded the appeal in April 2012, September 2018 and June 2020, and the matter has been returned for appellate consideration. Entitlement to service connection for memory loss (claimed as residuals of a head injury, including headaches, memory loss, and cerebral atrophy) is remanded. The Veteran is seeking service connection for memory loss. The Veteran asserts that his claimed memory loss is due to a March 1970 head injury that the Veteran suffered as a result of fight with another service member. As directed by the June 2020 Board remand, the Veteran was afforded an October 2020 VA examination. Although the VA examiner noted that the Veteran suffered from some level of memory impairment, the VA examiner stated that a “neurological or neuropsychological exam with appropriate testing would be required to make an official diagnosis.” Seeing the inherent insufficiency of this opinion, the RO sought clarification. In a November 2020 addendum, the examiner stated that “memory loss can’t be diagnosed as a stand-alone disorder without neuropsychological testing. Therefore, any memory issues at this time would be considered to be subsumed under his currently diagnosed condition of PTSD.” The RO then used this opinion to determine that service connection for memory loss is not warranted. That said, the inadequacy of both opinions is obvious. It is not clear whether the examiner meant that such testing should have been performed in the past, or whether such testing now could provide the information necessary to decide the claim. Regardless, no further testing was conducted. The Board finds that the directive in the June 2020 was not substantially complied with, therefore another remand is warranted, to ensure compliance with the remand's directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an opinion from an appropriate examiner as to the question of whether the Veteran suffers from memory loss related to his active service. If the reviewing examiner determines that the requested opinions cannot be provided without first examining the Veteran, then schedule the Veteran for an appropriate examination. Regardless of whether an examination is performed, the examiner is to answer the following questions: A) The examiner is first asked to clarify whether the Veteran's memory loss is a stand-alone disability or, instead, a symptom of another disability. B) If the Veteran's memory loss is found to be a stand-alone disability (as opposed to a symptom of another disability), the examiner is asked to address both of the following: a. Whether the memory loss is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including especially the Veteran's alleged head injury during service. b. Whether the memory loss is at least as likely as not (1) proximately due to or the result of service-connected unspecified psychiatric disability and nasal septum disability or (2) aggravated by service-connected unspecified psychiatric disability and nasal septum disability. The examiner is asked to address both proximate cause AND aggravation. In answering these questions, the examiner must address the opinion of the October 2020 examiner regarding neurological or neuropsychological testing. If such testing is indicated to be able to offer the above requested opinions, then such testing must be arranged, or it must be explained why such testing is either impractical or impossible. A complete rationale is required for all requested opinions. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J.R. Higgins, Associate 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.