190329-7940

• Court: Board of Veterans' Appeals
• Decided: December 31, 2019
• Docket: 190329-7940
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Citation Nr: AXXXXXXXX Decision Date: 12/31/19 Archive Date: 12/31/19

DOCKET NO. 190329-7940 DATE: December 31, 2019

REMANDED

Service connection for tension headache disorder, as secondary to the service-connected left eye disability, is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55, which became effective in February 2019 (to be codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), creates a new framework of review for veterans who disagree with VA’s decision on their claim.

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from August 1989 to December 1995. The rating decision on appeal was issued in May 2017. A notice of disagreement was filed in June 2017. In March 2018, the Veteran filed a Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) election form, opting into the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) review system and requesting higher level review. In the September 2018 AMA rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), also referred to as the Regional Office (RO), considered the evidence of record 30 days after the date VA received the RAMP election form. In March 2019, the Veteran timely appealed the AOJ decision to the Board and requested Direct Review.

Service connection for tension headache disorder, as secondary to the service-connected left eye disability, is remanded.

The Veteran contends that the current tension headache disorder is secondary to the service-connected left eye disability.

While a VA examination in May 2017 reflects a VA examiner’s opinion that the tension headache disorder is less likely as not proximately due to or the result of the service-connected left eye disability, the VA examiner did not opine whether the service-connected left eye aggravated the tension headache, that is, worsened the tension headache disorder beyond its normal progression. See El-Amin v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 136, 140 (2013) (holding that a medical opinion that focuses solely on causation is inadequate to address whether a service-connected disability aggravated another condition). The VA examiner also did not opine whether the tension headache disorder was incurred in or etiologically related to service.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the appropriate VA opinion to help determine whether the tension headache disorder is caused or worsened in severity by the service-connected left eye disability. The VA examiner should review the evidence associated with the record. A rationale for all opinions and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved should be provided.

The VA examiner should offer the following opinion:

Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., probability of 50 percent or more) that the tension headaches were aggravated (worsened in severity beyond a normal progression) by the service-connected left eye disability?

2. Then readjudicate the issue of service connection for the tension headache disorder, as secondary to the service-connected left eye disability, in light of all pertinent evidence.

J. PARKER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board D. Costantino, 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.