Migraines & headaches decisions — 2014

The Veteran's service-connected migraine headaches are currently evaluated at 30 percent, and the Board finds that a higher evaluation is not warranted based on the evidence of record.

The Board has remanded the case due to issues being inextricably intertwined, specifically the issue of service connection for a cervical spine disability. The Veteran's chronic headache disability is claimed as secondary to his cervical spine strain.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for an enlarged prostate was denied, while he was granted service connection for a neurological disorder (claimed as migraines and aura). The decision is mixed because one issue was granted and the other was denied.

The Veteran has withdrawn his appeals for increased ratings for headaches and herniated nucleus pulposus and degenerative disc disease with spondylosis of the cervical spine.

The Board found that the Veteran's headaches, skin disorder other than urticaria (claimed as dry scalp, skin rash with swelling and chicken skin), and right ear hearing loss were not incurred in or aggravated by service.

The Veteran's appeal for an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for migraine headaches has been withdrawn. The issues of entitlement to a compensable evaluation for alopecia and to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine with lumbar spine scoliosis are remanded.

The Veteran's residuals of head injury with subjective complaints of headaches, dizziness, and insomnia have been rated as a 40 percent disability since the rating period began.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for breast cyst removal, ear pain with itching, and headaches with dizziness and weakness. The reasons given were that there was no evidence of a current disability or causal relationship to service.

The Board has remanded the issues of service connection for headaches and a sinus disorder due to additional development being required.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of a Statement of the Case (SOC) addressing the overpayment waiver issue. The appellant must submit a new notice of disagreement if they wish to continue their appeal.