Citation Nr: 21026286 Decision Date: 04/30/21 Archive Date: 04/30/21 DOCKET NO. 12-02 810 DATE: April 30, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a memory disability as part of the service-connected thoracic and lumbosacral spine disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the evidence is against finding a current memory loss disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a memory disability as part of the service-connected thoracic and lumbosacral spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from February 1966 to January 1969. 1. Service connection for a memory disability as part of the service-connected thoracic and lumbosacral spine (back) disability While pursuing an increased rating for his service-connected back disability, the Veteran contended that medication for his back caused memory loss. Service connection may be granted on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of (caused) or worsened beyond its natural progression (aggravated) by a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.310; Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448-49 (1995) (en banc). The Board must consider all the evidence of record and make appropriate determinations of competency, credibility, and weight. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any material issue, all reasonable doubt is resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Based on the evidence, the Board finds the criteria for service connection for memory problems as part of the back disability have not been met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The weight of the evidence is against finding a current memory loss disability. VA treatment records show complaints of memory loss, which he asserted was due to medicine prescribed for his back pain. Specifically, he reported that between 1991 and 1992 he was treated with oxycodone and had a bad reaction that affected both his short- and long-term memory and his general cognitive functioning. During the Board hearing, he testified that he continued to have memory problems, for example, forgetting to turn off the faucet or leaving food on the stove until it burns. However, the evidence shows the Veteran’s memory problems resolved and he does not have a current memory disability. In September 1998, a provider evaluated the Veteran based on clinical interview, medical records, and psychological tests and found that while the Veteran had some mild attention and concentration difficulties, there were no notable impairments in his logical memory, visual reproduction memory, or associative learning capacities and his delayed recall test was within normal limits. In July 1999, a provider noted that psychological testing found little support for memory impairment. Treatment records from June 2001 show intact immediate, recent, and remote memory and from March 2004 show no gross cognitive impairment. During January 2002 treatment, the Veteran clarified that he was not claiming permanent memory impairment but rather temporary impairment at the time he was using the prescribed medications. July 2001 neuropsychological testing revealed memory scores generally within normal limits with some inconsistent results on nonverbal memory tests, which matched the Veteran’s report of forgetting where he placed items. The evaluator found that those problems were considered a normal weakness rather than a deficit, and there was no objective evidence of memory loss. The December 2020 examiner found the Veteran did not have any significant memory or cognitive impairment, citing to the normal evaluation in 2001 and normal cognitive assessment completed as part of the 2020 examination. (Continued on the next page)   Based on the evidence, it appears the Veteran suffered side-effects from medications prescribed in 1991 and 1992. However, the weight of the evidence is against finding a current memory or cognitive disability. While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, such as forgetfulness, he does not have the requisite medical training to attribute those symptoms to specific diagnosis or evaluate cognitive impairment. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Instead, the Board must rely on the medical evaluations of record, which show he does not have a diagnosable memory or cognitive disability. The Board finds the medical evaluations of record highly probative due to the consistency and detailed analyses. The Board is grateful for the Veteran’s honorable service, and this decision is not meant to detract from that service. However, given the record before it, the Board finds that evidence in this case does not reach the level of equipoise. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a). Unfortunately, the Board concludes that service connection for memory impairment as part of the back disability is not warranted at this time. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A.P. Armstrong 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.