Citation Nr: 21026204 Decision Date: 04/30/21 Archive Date: 04/30/21 DOCKET NO. 18-54 056 DATE: April 30, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a headache disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1969 to April 1971. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2017 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2019, the Board issued a decision denying service connection for a headache disorder. The Veteran appealed the Board’s denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an October 2019 order, the Court vacated the April 2019 decision as it pertained to the denial of service connection for a headache disorder and remanded the matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMR). Subsequently, in April 2020, the Board issued a decision denying service connection for a headache disorder. The Veteran again appealed the Board’s denial to the Court. In a December 2020 order, the Court vacated the April 2020 decision as it pertained to the denial of service connection for a headache disorder and remanded the matter to the Board for further proceedings consistent with a JMPR. The Board notes that the issues of entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder and for a left knee disorder were remanded by the Board in the April 2020 decision. The Veteran has since requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge for these issues. Therefore, the Board will not address these issues as they will be the subject of a future Board decision, if otherwise in order. In the December 2020 JMPR, the parties agreed that remand was warranted because the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases in determining whether the December 2018 VA examination was adequate. It was unclear from the December 2018 VA examiner’s rationale whether the Veteran’s statements of experiencing continuing headaches since service, as reported in the October 2017 VA examination, would be indicative of evidence of headaches following service. The Board, in the April 2020 decision, acknowledged the Veteran’s statements regarding a history of headaches since 1970, and indicated that the Veteran was not diagnosed with migraine headaches therefore the Veteran’s assertions alone could not support an award of service connection pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) based on continuity of symptomatology. However, the parties to the JMPR found that the Board failed to adequately address this argument. The Veteran’s reports of a continuity of headache symptoms can still support a claim for service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) and (d). As the December 2018 VA opinion did not address the Veteran’s statements, the Board finds that remand for a new VA examination is needed to adequately comply with the directives of the December 2020 JMPR. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of his headache disorder. The electronic claims file must be made available to the examiner and the examiner must review the claims file. Following an examination and review of the claims file, the examiner must provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or higher) that the Veteran’s headache disorder is related to his active duty service, to include complaints of headaches in May 1969, May 1970, and September 1970. In providing this opinion, the examiner must consider and discuss the Veteran’s statements of experiencing continuing headaches since 1970. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms/history and that such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. A complete rationale for all opinions must be provided. If the examiner cannot provide a requested opinion without resorting to speculation, it must be so stated, and the clinician must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. The examiner must indicate whether there was any further need for information or testing necessary to make a determination. Additionally, the examiner must indicate whether any opinion could not be rendered due to limitations of knowledge in the medical community at large and not those of the particular examiner. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Bonnie Yoon, 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.