Citation Nr: 22058366 Decision Date: 10/18/22 Archive Date: 10/18/22 DOCKET NO. 19-07 383 DATE: October 18, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a seizure disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's seizure disorder was at least as likely as not incurred during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a seizure disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from July 1980 to July 1984 and May 1989 to May 1998. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2022. A transcript of that proceeding is associated with the claims file. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service-the so-called "nexus" requirement. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 38 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The absence of any one element will result in denial of service connection. Service connection may also be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection must be considered on the basis of the places, types, and circumstances of a veteran's service as shown by his or her service records, the official history of each organization in which he or she served, his or her medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a seizure disorder The Veteran maintains that his seizure disorder was incurred during service. The Board agrees and concludes that the evidence supports a finding that the criteria for service connection have been met. With respect to current disability, the record reveals that the Veteran was diagnosed with a seizure disorder in March 2016 based on electromyography (EMG) testing. A VA examiner confirmed this diagnosis in May 2016. Accordingly, the Board finds that a current disability has been established. With respect to in-service incurrence, the Veteran maintains that his seizure disorder stems from a parachute fall during active-duty service in 1983. The Veteran reported that he hit his back and head when he fell, which resulted in loss of consciousness and a fracture of the back. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms and observable events within the realm of his personal knowledge. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470-471 (1994); Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377. Furthermore, the Board finds no reason to doubt the credibility of these statements, as service treatment records (STRs) document loss of consciousness from the parachute accident. STRs also document incidents after the parachute accident where the Veteran blacked out and lost sense of where he was. After these incidents, the Veteran reported feeling confused, dizzy, lightheaded, sleepy, thirsty, and hungry. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran's competent and credible lay statements sufficiently establish the in-service incurrence element of this claim. The remaining question is whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's in-service incurrence and his current seizure disorder. The record contains a negative opinion addressing this question. In May 2016, a VA examiner provided a negative nexus. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran was not diagnosed with a seizure disorder until 2016, which was approximately 17 years after his discharge from service. Based on this finding, the examiner concluded that the Veteran's in-service complaints of dizziness, headaches, and vision impairment are less likely than not attributed to the Veteran's current seizure disorder. Contrary to this opinion, the Veteran reported that he has experienced residual symptoms since the parachute incident, including headaches, sleepiness, dizziness, nausea, and cognitive deficits. He further testified that these symptoms have worsened over time, and they eventually resulted in a diagnosis of a seizure disorder in March 2016. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuity of his symptoms and the Board finds no reason to doubt the credibility of these statements. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); see also Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377. Consistent with the Veteran's statements, post-service treatment records document residual symptoms from seizures, including lightheadedness, spinning, blurred vision, nausea. Treating records also reveal that the Veteran has experienced difficulties with cognition and memory since service. The VA examiner did not address this evidence in formulating an opinion. Thus, the Board finds that the opinion is inadequate and not probative. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 548 (1993). Given that there is no adequate negative opinion, the competent and credible statements made by the Veteran, considered in combination with the STRs and post-service treatment records documentation of symptoms that led to a diagnosis of a seizure disorder, are highly probative in establishing a nexus. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (service connection must be considered on the basis of the places, types, and circumstances of a veteran service as shown by his or her service records, the official history of each organization in which he or she served, his or her medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence); see also Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1335 ("[N]othing in the regulatory or statutory provisions [relating to evidence to be considered] require both medical and competent lay evidence; rather, they make clear that competent lay evidence can be sufficient in and of itself"). Accordingly, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of establishes a nexus between service and the Veteran's current seizure disorder. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of establishes a nexus between service and the Veteran's seizure disorder. As such, service connection for a seizure disorder is granted. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Beech, 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.