BVA Case 20-5236: Back

23 The decision acknowledged the testimony that the severity of [appellant's]headaches [have]been characteristic of prostrating attacks since 2009, but the Board found that the evidence does not show that [appellant's] headaches were productive of prostrating attacks .

24 The Board noted appellant's VA treatment records and his April 2014 examination that indicated that his headaches were of less severity and contemporaneously documented his symptoms and the severity of his headaches.

25 Accordingly,the Board determined that the lay assertions of prostrating attacks were outweighed by other record evidence.

28 Appellant further argues that the Board failed to consider favorable evidence when it determined that appellant's headaches were not productive of prostrating attacks.

Specifically,he asserts that the Board failed to adequately discuss his and his wife's testimony about the onset, worsening,and prostrating nature of his headaches.

Appellant focuses his argument on appeal principally on the contention that the Board erred because the Board member who conducted his AMA hearing did not also render the decision on his appeal.

However,appellant also asserts that the Board erred when it denied him a higher disability rating because the Board did not consider statements about his prostrating headaches that both he and his wife made during the May 2019 Board hearing.

89 He also reframes that argument by maintaining that the Board did not adequately explain why it failed to consider those statements.