Jump to content


  • veteranscrisisline-badge-chat-1.gif

  • Fund HadIt.com

    273%
    $4,108.00 of $1,500.00 Donate Now
  • Advertisemnt

  • 14 Questions about VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims

    questions-001@3x.png

    When a Veteran starts considering whether or not to file a VA Disability Claim, there are a lot of questions that he or she tends to ask. Over the last 10 years, the following are the 14 most common basic questions I am asked about ...
    Continue Reading
     
  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   

    tinnitus-005.pngptsd-005.pnglumbosacral-005.pngscars-005.pnglimitation-flexion-knee-005.pngdiabetes-005.pnglimitation-motion-ankle-005.pngparalysis-005.pngdegenerative-arthitis-spine-005.pngtbi-traumatic-brain-injury-005.png

  • Advertisemnt

  • VA Watchdog

  • Advertisemnt

  • Ads

  • Can a 100 percent Disabled Veteran Work and Earn an Income?

    employment 2.jpeg

    You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons … Continue reading

  • 0

Post-traumatic Headaches: Subtypes And Behavioral Treatments


Guest allanopie

Question

Guest allanopie

This article was written and published in 1988. Specific information concerning staff and services may have changed since that time, however, as you will see upon reading the article, the content is as pertinent today as when the article was written.

Post-traumatic Headaches: Subtypes and Behavioral Treatments

Thomas Bennett

Chronic, recurrent headache commonly follows head injury, and interestingly, it is seen more often in individuals who have experienced minor head trauma than in those more seriously injured. I will describe subtypes and behavioral treatments of the post-traumatic headache. One must realize, however, that headache is only one of a number of symptoms that commonly follow head injury. While it may be the symptom that results in a patient seeking medical treatment following brain or head injury, it may on the other hand be only the "tip of the iceberg".

Many patients complaining only of post-traumatic headache are found, under close neuropsychological evaluation, to be concurrently suffering from verbal and communicative disorders, deficits in information processing and reaction time, memory difficulties, problems with perception, and impaired concept formation and general reasoning ability (Alves, Colohan, O'Leary, Rimel, & Jane, 1986). Post-traumatic headaches should also be considered within the context of post-traumatic symptoms in general which are often collectively called the "post concussion syndrome". At this point it may be helpful to briefly consider the "post concussion syndrome" in general because many of the statements that I could make about post-traumatic headaches apply to other post-traumatic symptoms as well.

Post-Traumatic Symptoms

The basis of post-traumatic symptoms in individuals who have sustained minor head injury (loss of consciousness of 20 minutes or less and post-traumatic amnesia of 24 hours or less) has been debated for over 2OO years. The common use of the term "post concussion syndrome" to describe the symptoms of these patients has a psychological flavor to it. It was (and still is in less informed circles) typical for physicians and psychologists to ascribe symptoms for which there was no obvious organic basis (no hematoma, no penetration of the dura, no contusion of the brain) to neurotic processes or malingering.

The modern view of post-traumatic symptoms is that they do indeed have a biological or organic basis. It is now accepted that even mild concussion usually entails some structural damage to the brain (Jennett & Teasdale, 1981). This is not to say that emotional factors do not play an important role in post-traumatic symptoms because it is generally believed that emotional factors can both exacerbate and prolong post-traumatic symptoms that are the result of biological factors. This conclusion underscores the need to employ both biological and psychological interventions in treating patients with post-traumatic symptoms.

With respect to malingering, let me point out that its incidence has been vastly overestimated. Symptoms are deliberately exaggerated in a smaller proportion of patients than was previously thought to be the case (Boll, 1982; Rimel, Giordani, Barth, Boll, & Jane, 1981). Neither insurance claims nor pending litigation is a significant factor influencing return to work or social recovery (Irving, 1972; Oddy, Humphrey & Uttley, 1978).

A number of symptoms have been identified to follow minor head injury. However, it is not accurate to describe these symptoms as a syndrome as was common practice when using the term "post concussion syndrome". While a given patient may exhibit one, two, three, or less commonly, more of these symptoms, it is rare to see a patient experience all of them (Alves et al., 1986). Post-traumatic symptoms commonly reported after minor head injury include headaches; dizziness; impaired concentration; memory problems; sensory problems including diminished hearing, olfaction, and taste; diplopia; tinnitus; hypersensitivity to noise; insomnia; fatigue; irritability; anxiety and depression.

The mechanisms maintaining these symptoms are not always obvious, but some meaningful statements can be made. The problems with dizziness and auditory difficulties are undoubtedly related to concussion of the balance and central auditory processing functions of the inner ear. Decreased olfactory sensitivity is related to strain injury of the axons of the olfactory tract as they enter the brain. I suspect that reports of decreased taste sensitivity do not reflect a decrement in that specific modality, but rather they reflect a loss of gustatory sensitivity secondary to diminished olfactory sensitivity. Hypersensitivity to noise and hyperirritability probably at least partially reflect general diminished inhibitory or gating (filtering out) processes in the brain. Insomnia is a common sequel after head injury; in general, initiation, maintenance, and cycling mechanisms do not operate as efficiently as they should after head injury, presumably because of neural disruption resulting from rotational forces exerted on the brain stem at the time of injury.

Loss of concentration and memory problems may be reflective of diminished information processing ability in general. Gronwall and Wrightson (1974) tested information processing ability using the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT). They found that head injured patients who performed abnormally on this test at 35 days post-injury still complained of post-traumatic symptoms; the disappearance of these symptoms correlated nicely with restoration of normal performance on the PASAT.

Irritability, anxiety, and depression can all be contributed to by organic factors, but typically, they are more dependent on psychological processes. Coping with head injury produces feelings of loss of self-control and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness. Finding that you can no longer perform efficiently at home, school, or on the job is very stressful, and it can aggravate other post-traumatic symptoms as well.

The nature of and basis for post-traumatic headache is more difficult to explain. There appear to be many possible causes for persisting headache after head injury. Some of these include musculoskeletal trauma to the neck, head, and jaw regions, pain in scalp, scars, neuralgia of occipital or supraorbital nerves, precipitation of migraine in predisposed individuals, and occasional serious intracranial complications. Post-traumatic headaches are a significant health problem when one realizes that close to half of all patients discharged from the hospital after minor head injury report persistent headache (e.g., Alves et al., 1986).

Subtypes of Post-Traumatic Headaches

The vast majority of patients who experience persistent post-traumatic headaches have no intracranial abnormalities to explain their headache pain (Dalessio, 1980). Electroencephalographic (EEG) abnormalities are not correlated with occurrence of post-traumatic headache, but the presence of scalp lacerations is positively correlated (Scherokman & Massey, 1983). At least four or five types of post-traumatic headaches have been categorized including, 1) steady pressure with cap-like distribution, 2) circumscribed superficial tenderness around the impact site, 3) episodic aching or throbbing pain which is typically unilateral, and 4) episodic, unilateral frontotemporal pain with ipsilateral mydriasis and hyperhidrosis. Recently, I have seen more and more cases where patients report unilateral or bilateral pain in the temple region or just superior to it and I will comment on this as a fifth type of post-traumatic head pain.

Type 1: Steady Pressure with Cap-like Distribution

Type 1 headaches are the most common and persistent variety of headaches that occur after head injury. Patients will often have this type of headache concurrently with one or more of the other types. As indicated, these headaches are described as a steady pressure, often with a cap-like distribution, but more commonly in a circumscribed area elsewhere than the site of the injury. There is usually a deep tenderness present in the neck or shoulder region, and headache can often be reproduced by manual pressure on these tender areas. The intensity of the associated pain is described as being from "mild to very severe". The attacks of pain can recur for many years. Occurring intermittently, the attacks can vary from several hours to as long as ten days duration (Dalessio, 1980).

Type 1 headaches are usually made worse by effort stress, coughing, stooping or turning the head. As a result the patient may be functionally incapacitated for engaging in physical activity related to work or recreation. During periods of severe headache of this sort, patients may experience spinning sensations, dizziness, and photophobia (Dalessio, 1980). Finally, these headaches are associated with persistent and sustained muscle contraction in the head, neck, upper back, and shoulders. This can be easily demonstrated through electromyographic (EMG) studies that show excessive levels of muscle contraction in these patients. Medically, these headaches are treated with muscle relaxants, analgesics, amiltryptaline, heat, and massage. They often prove to be resistant to treatments.

Type 2: Circumscribed Tenderness Around Impact Site

Most patients with Type 2 headaches suffer from Type 1 headaches as well. Type 2 patients have a circumscribed, relatively superficial tenderness of the scalp at the site of the original injury which is often, but not always, associated with a visible or palpable scar (Scherokman & Massey, 1983). In most patients who experience this type of pain, there is spontaneous aching pain at the original site of impact; in some cases, headache pain only occurs when some pressure, such as a hat or a brush, is applied to the site (Dalessio, 1980). Typically, this type of post-traumatic headache pain is described as being "moderate", and usually it resolves within a year after the original injury. It appears to be related to contusion and injury to the scalp vasculature.

Type 3: Episodic Aching or Throbbing Pain, Usually Unilateral

Type 3 post-traumatic headaches are described as aching, often throbbing pain, usually unilateral in onset. They occur in attacks and are most commonly reported to occur in the temporal regions. They are also sometimes frontal, occipital, or postauricular. The attacks may be of short duration, and they may represent an intensification of symptoms for patients who also experience a background of Type 1 headache. Reported pain associated with Type 3 headaches varies from "mild to severe". The intensity of the pain is increased by effort, coughing, bending, or lying down.

Post-traumatic headaches of the Type 3 variety, while usually unilateral in onset often become generalized. They often begin in the morning or are present upon awakening, and they may continue all day. Nausea, vomiting, and anorexia may accompany them. Dalessio (1980) reports that these headaches are not relieved by massage or head but ice bags, cold compresses, and codeine will provide relief. Ergotamine tartrate eliminated this type of pain but did not diminish Type 1 components resulting from excessive muscle contraction. Type 3 headaches are vascular in nature, and they are more commonly seen in patients with a migraine history, even if migraines have been rare or infrequent in the past. This type of headache disorder is related to recurrent painful distention of cranial arteries. For many patients, it represents the precipitation of a serious vascular headache (migraine) disorder in a person already at risk.

Type 4: Episodic, Unilateral Frontotemporal Pain With Ipsilateral Mydriasis and Hyperhidrosis

Vijayan (1977) has described a type of headache syndrome associated with anterior neck injuries secondary to cervical whiplash (also see Khurana & Nirankari, 1986). In these patients, unilateral, frontotemporal vasodilating headaches are experienced episodically. What makes them unique is that they are accompanied by ipsilateral mydriasis (excessive dilation of the pupil) and facial hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating). When the pain subsides, the patient is left with ipsilateral ptosis (drooping of the upper eyelid) and miosis (excessive constriction of the pupil). In Vijayan's series, patients experienced between two and 12 of these headaches per month.

Type 4 headaches are related to damage to the third-order sympathetic neuron in the neck; they reflect localized sympathetic nervous system dysfunction. Patients with these headaches were helped when treated with the beta adrenergic blocking agent, propranolol, in doses of 20-60 mg per day (Vijayan, 1977); they did not respond to ergotamine.

Type 5: Pain in Temple or Superior Temple Region

A fifth type of headache syndrome, which also typically is accompanied by Type 1 headaches, is an intermittent recurrent relatively steady pain in the region of the temples or just above. The pain may be unilateral or bilateral, and when it is bilateral, it may be described as a band extending from temple to temple. It is also typically accompanied by jaw popping during chewing, leaving no doubt that it is related to temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction or injury. Many people in our society clench their teeth at night (bruxism) in response to stress. An automobile accident that results in a person striking the windshield or dashboard can easily exacerbate ongoing temporomandibular joint degeneration or significantly displace or injure a healthy joint. High resolution computerized tomography has been shown to be vastly superior to conventional radiography in detecting TMJ degeneration in post-traumatic headache patients (Tilds, Miller, & Guidice, 1986). The increasing availability of magnetic resonance imaging will enhance the detection of these difficulties further. Treatment of TMJ syndrome, whether post-traumatic or not, may require a multidisciplinary approach including orthodontic and surgical treatments, splint therapy, physical therapy, and biofeedback.

In summary, at least five distinct headache syndromes can be described in post-traumatic headache victims. With the exception of Type 4, which reflects sympathetic nerve damage, these headaches reflect musculoskeletal and vascular dysfunction that is essentially the same as that seen in chronic headache patients who have not experienced trauma. As with typical chronic headache patients, the head pain experienced by head trauma victims comes in many combinations. As indicated, patients with Types 2, 3, and 5 headaches will often complain of Type 1 headaches as well, and some patients will exhibit symptoms consistent with several subtypes concurrently. A multimodality approach using behavioral treatment interventions will be described next. The use of behavioral treatments for patients with post-traumatic headaches has been discussed in case studies by several investigators (e.g., Daly & Wulff, 1987; Duckro, Tait, Margolis, & Silvermintz, 1985; Muse, 1986).

In Behavioral Treatments of Post-Traumatic Headaches, Packard (1979) asked directly, "What does the headache patient want?" and then outlined the stated needs of patients along with physician estimates of those needs. Generally speaking, physicians ranked medication higher than did the patients. The patients gave their highest rankings to the need for information about the causes of their headaches and to the need for relief from pain. The patients' responses thus indicated that education must be an integral part of any headache treatment program. Behavioral treatment of post-traumatic headaches must thus use a multifaceted approach and should include education about headaches and medications for them, physiologic therapies such as physical therapy, therapeutic massage and biofeedback, and cognitive-behavioral therapies aimed at helping the patient acquire pain management skills.

Education

Let us forever bury the idea that post-traumatic headaches, or headaches in general, are simply psychiatric problems. Clearly, stress can produce or exacerbate headache syndromes, but headaches are best understood by considering both psychological and physiological factors. Their interaction can be understood by an explanation to the patient with post-traumatic headaches.

The Vicious Cycle

A major failure of the traditional organic-psychological dichotomy is to downplay the interaction among emotional factors, the autonomic nervous system, and elevated levels of muscle tension on head pain levels. Muscle tension levels are commonly elevated in the head, neck, shoulders, and upper back regions after trauma, and this is often not evaluated in diagnostic studies. The muscle contraction can cause additional pain. Similarly, it is clearly the case that emotional arousal is frequently present in these patients. Emotional arousal increases discharge in the sympathetic nervous system. Prolonged excessive discharge in the sympathetic system will in turn exacerbate pain levels by increasing perception of the intensity of stimuli related to pain.

Unfortunately, these physical and emotional factors can create a "vicious cycle" in which pain becomes a stressor, eliciting emotional (anger, frustration) and physical (increased muscle tension) factors which then produce more pain (Zimmerman, 1981). The longer this sort of cycle persists, the more difficult it is to break. Diagramming the cycle, explaining it to the patient and then giving homework exercises to disrupt it have been very effective in helping the post-traumatic headache patient break this cycle. This type of exercise is most beneficial if the patient learns techniques to intervene at multiple points in the cycle.

When patients have learned about the physiological factors contributing to their headaches and how emotional factors can interact with physical factors to set up a "vicious cycle", they are ready to accept the fact that their pain has both biological and psychological aspects. They can then be assured that their presence in the psychologist's office is not because their physician believes their headaches are "just in their minds".

Treatments

Medication

I find that few patients understand the role of medication in their treatment. It is clear that medications (i.e., analgesics, those which reduce muscle spasms and overall level of muscle contraction, those that reduce emotional arousal, and antidepressants) can be useful in selected patients. The psychiatric medications may or may not produce pain relief because of their psychiatric effects. Benzodiazepines may help because of their muscle relaxant properties; antidepressants may help because they promote serotonin activity in the brain which in turn decreases pain sensations. Patients need to be informed of why they are taking certain medications. One must be careful in using antidepressants, particularly amitryptaline, in treating individuals with post-traumatic headaches. The anticholinergic side effects of these drugs can exacerbate post-traumatic symptoms related to head injury including dizziness, diminished concentration, and memory problems.

Patients also typically have a misconception about how effective their medications should be. They often believe that analgesics should eliminate the pain completely. I find that this is an example of a "fix me doc syndrome" that impedes the progress of many patients. Instead of holding the belief that "improvement is outside of their own control" (Barnat, 1986), post-traumatic headache patients need to learn that a certain amount of discomfort will often persist; it is something that must be lived with. If a medication provides no relief, then it is a failure, but medications that provide only partial relief have not necessarily failed.

Biofeedback

Physiological therapies, including physical therapy, therapeutic massage, and biofeedback, can be effective treatments for post-traumatic headaches. I will only discuss the use of biofeedback therapy in this paper, but let me emphasize that we regularly refer post-traumatic headache patients to certified massage therapists and/or physical therapists as part of their treatment program. These procedures are all complimentary to one another.

Biofeedback is a procedure by which a biological signal (for example, skin temperature, muscle tension, heart rate, brain waves) is converted to an easily detected signal, such as a light or a tone, and "fed back" to a patient so that she or he can exert conscious control over that function. Thus, a person might learn to detect and subsequently lower excessive levels of muscle tension in his or her forehead, neck, shoulders, and jaw, or a person might learn to increase the recorded temperature of her or his finger tips. (Cold hands signal excessive sympathetic nervous system discharge and resulting vasoconstriction; they are a sign of stress and a common characteristic of migraineurs.)

Biofeedback is not a cure-all, and this treatment is most effective when incorporated into a comprehensive treatment program. Nevertheless, biofeedback treatment has been used successfully for two decades to treat a variety of psychophysiological disorders including muscle contraction and vascular headaches, hypertension, gastrointestinal disorders, pain syndromes, anxiety syndromes, abnormal heartbeats, sleep disorders, and many neurological syndromes including movement disorders and epilepsy. It is also employed in neuromuscular rehabilitation following peripheral or central nervous system damage (Bennett, 1987). I have found it to be of significant benefit for the post-traumatic headache patient, particularly when combined with stress management training.

As I indicated in an earlier article (Bennett, 1988), biofeedback training can have both obvious and subtle benefits for these patients. One obvious benefit would be to teach the patient with excessive levels of muscle tension to relax chronically tensed muscles and to be more sensitive to muscle tension levels. This is accomplished through electromyographic (EMG or muscle tension) training. Temperature training in biofeedback can be used to increase vasodilation (decrease sympathetic activity) and thereby decrease the likelihood of vascular headaches. We typically use a combination of these procedures, as both contribute to stress management and relaxation training. All post-traumatic headache patients can benefit from such training. EMG biofeedback is particularly applicable to patients experiencing Type 1 and Type 5 headaches, and temperature training is especially relevant for patients with Type 3 headaches.

A more subtle benefit of biofeedback is to teach the patient that he or she can have some control over an aspect of their life (for example, "I can relax my muscles and decrease the severity of my headaches"). The head injured person often has a recent history of failure and frustration, and feelings of "loss of control" or "helplessness" may predominate. By learning to have more control over something as basic as level of muscle tension or skin temperature, the patient can learn that "what I do can really makes a difference". This helps the person to overcome the "fix me doc" syndrome and places him or her in more control of their future in general. Thus, the feelings of failure, loss of control, and helplessness can be attenuated.

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapies

The usefulness of cognitive-behavioral therapies in pain management and headache treatment programs is well established. A particularly effective use of these principles in the treatment of chronic headache patients has been described by Bakal (1982), whose general program is quite helpful for patients with post-traumatic headaches. I recommend it highly. Two important features of this program are attention diversion and thought management. These methods assist the patient in decreasing the intensity of the pain and in minimizing negative thoughts and dysphoric affect that increase headache severity.

In introducing the use of attention diversion and thought management, it is important to explain to the patient that headache pain consists of both sensory and reactive components. The sensory component consists of sensations of pain that are largely determined by changes in the muscles and veins of the head. The reactive (or cognitive) component consists of the thoughts and feelings that accompany headache episodes. There are, in turn, two important aspects of the reactive component. The first is the amount of attention that is directed toward the headache. The second is our interpretation of thoughts regarding, and feelings about, the pain experience. Negative or catastrophic cognitions exacerbate pain by increasing activation of the sympathetic nervous system.

The patient being taught attention diversion learns that we normally only focus on one thing at a time, and we are free to attend to whatever we want. Thus, we can influence what we are attending to by shifting our attention from one aspect of our environment to another (internal or external). Finally, it is difficult if not impossible, to stop focusing on one's pain unless one shifts attention to something else.

With this general framework in mind, the patient is provided with a number of attention diversion strategies to learn. They are initially practiced during headache-free periods and later applied to times of significant headache discomfort. Turk (1978) provides a variety of attention-diversion techniques, including imagery production, strategies that are relatively easy to master and quite effective in interrupting and/or decreasing the intensity of a headache attack.

Thought management deals with helping the patient control negative and/or catastrophic headache-related thoughts and feelings. By now, the patient is quite aware of the role that distressing thoughts play in their headache disorder. He or she is encouraged to understand that distressing cognitions not only increase the pain experienced, but also they interfere with the ability to cope effectively with the headache pain. These thought patterns can be identified and modified. The patient learns that the process of "negative talking", can be reversed, and training is given in how to accomplish this.

First the patient is told to be alert to those times when he or she is experiencing distressing feelings and thoughts. Second, the patient learns to use these distressing thoughts as a signal to start making positive self-statements. Third, the patient learns to actively substitute the distressing cognitions with positive, coping-oriented statements (Bakal, 1982). In order to demonstrate this process, the patient is provided with a list of positive statements (Turk, 1979) to be used during different stages of the headache episode. He or she is encouraged to develop his or her own statements as well. Again, this intervention is over-practiced during times when headaches are not present before being put into practice.

Conclusions

Post-traumatic headache is the most frequent complaint made by victims of minor head injury and is thus of major importance in head trauma rehabilitation. Post-traumatic headaches can be severe and persistent. As a result they can produce a major disruption in the patient's life. Their economic impact is significant in that they can prevent return to work in individuals who are otherwise recovered.

Post-traumatic headaches reflect an interaction among organic and emotional factors. For this reason, they are best treated via a multimodality approach that considers all of these factors. For many individuals, participation in such a program results in a complete remission of their symptoms. For others, the end of the program represents an improvement in their symptoms and the beginning of a long-term process of self-managing their headache pain. Most patients arrive at the point where their headaches no longer interfere with their lives. This represents a significant improvement over their prior incapacitation dependency on a variety of medications. In head injury recovery, this is one sign that the victim can once more be in control of her or his future.

REFERENCES

Alves, E.M., Colohan, A.R.T., O'Leary, T.J., Rimel, R.W. & Jane, J.A. (1986). Understanding post-traumatic symptoms after minor head injury. Journal of Head Injury Rehabilitation, 1, 1-12.

Bakal, D.A. (1982). The psychobiology of chronic headache. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

Barnat, M.R. (1986). Post-traumatic headache patients II: Special problems, perceptions, and service needs. Headache, 26, 332-338.

Bennett, T.L. (1988). Neuropsychological rehabilitation in the private practice setting. Cognitive Rehabilitation, 6(l), 1215.

Bennett, T.L. (1987). Neuropsychological aspects of complex partial seizures: Diagnostic and treatment issues. The International Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 9, 37-45.

Boll. T.J. (1982). Behavioral sequelae of head injury. In P.R. Cooper (Ed.) Head Injury. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.

Dalessio, D.J. (1980). Post-traumatic headache. In D.J. Dalessio (Ed.) Wolff’s headache and other head pain, 4th ed. New York: Oxford.

Daly, E. & Wulff, J. (1987). Treatment of post-traumatic headache. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 60, 85-88. University Press, 3324-3381.

Duckro, P.N., Tait, R., Margolis, R.B. & Silvermintz, S. (1985). Behavioral treatment of headache following occupational trauma. Headache, 25, 328-331.

Gronwall, D. & Wrightson, P. (1974). Delayed recovery of intellectual function after minor head injury. Lancet, 2, 605-609.

Irving, J.G. (1972). Impact of insurance coverage on convalescence and rehabilitation of head injured patients. Connecticut Medicine, 36, 385-391.

Jennett, B. & Teasdale, G. (1981). Management of head injuries. Philadelphia, D.A. Davis.

Khurana, R.K. & Nirankari, V.S. (1986). Bilateral sympathetic dysfunction in post-traumatic headaches. Headache, 26, 117-121.

Muse, M. (1986). Stress-related, post-traumatic chronic pain syndrome: Behavioral treatment approach. Pain, 25, 389-394.

Oddy, M., Humphrey, M. & Uttley, D. (1978). Subjective impairment and social recovery after closed head injury. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry, 41, 611-616.

Packard, R. (1979). What does the headache patient want? Headache, 19, 370-374.

Rimel, R.W., Giordani, B., Barth, J.T., Boll, T.J. & Jane, J.A. (1981). Disability caused by minor head injury. Neurosurgery, 9.

Scherokman, B. & Massey, W. (1983). Post-traumatic headache. Neurologic Clinics, (2), 457-463.

Tilds, B.N., Miller, P.R. & Guidice, M.A. (1986). The diagnostic value of high resolution computerized tomography in post traumatic head pain patients. Headache, 26, 117-121.

Turk, D.C. (1978). Cognitive behavioral techniques in the management of pain. In J.P. Foreyt & D.P. Rathjen (Eds.) Cognitive behavior therapy: Research and application. New York: Plenum Publishing Company.

Vijayan, N. (1977). A new post-traumatic headache syndrome: Clinical and therapeutic observations. Headache, 17,19-22.

Zimmerman, M. (1981). Physiological mechanisms of pain and pain therapy. Triangle, 20, 7-17.

This article originally appeared in The Journal of Cognitive Rehabilitation, Volume 6 Issue 2, March/April 1988.

Copyright 1996-1998 by The NeuroScience Center and NeuroScience Publishers

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Answers 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

Popular Days

0 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

There have been no answers to this question yet

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Ads

  • Ads

  • Similar Content

    • By Matt Birchfield
      Afternoon all.
       
      I have been doing some research into Tinnitus and claiming secondary for Insomnia and Hypertension. I have a 10% for Tinnitus and 0% for hearing loss (submarine sonar tech), but honestly the lack of sleep is beating me down. I have not gotten a full night in several years. I usually get 5-6 hrs a night, with multiple interruptions due to what I feel is my ears ringing. 
      I did a search on the forum here for tinnitus and Insomnia but the last post was from 2012, hence the new thread.
      I was able to find 3 cases where the VA ruled in favor of the member for secondary insomnia and secondary hypertension, Case numbers: 1207104, 1522463, and 1600946. The last case was for insomnia only. I also have a study that is an Examination of the relationship between Insomnia and Tinnitus, DOI: 10.1177/1179557318781078
      My question is how do I get this all linked together? I plan on going to my primary care and taking this evidence to him (He's a retired commander) and see what his thoughts are, but I was also referred to you guys as the knowledgeable peeps. 
       
      Thanks
       
      Matt
    • By Pastor Kodiak
      Yesterday, I received the Judgment from the Administrative Law Judge that handled my appeal. I am using a VA-trained/approved attorney and the judge found in our favor. After 40 years of fighting with the VA. I filed my original claim the second day after my discharge. It was denied over and over again for all these years.
      I think what made a difference this time was the attorney pointing out that my VA psychologist that I'd been seeing for years, had diagnosed me and then the VA sent me to a specific non-VA psychologist for my C&P and she diagnosed me the exact same way and advised that I should receive a 100% rating for my PTSD. 
      They denied the claim (again) and when I got the decision letter explaining all the evidence they used to make their decision, they didn't include the report from my shrink or the C&P shrink. 
      So, now that service-connection is founded and they've already determined my rating (from the C&P already done), do I too have to go back to sleep for months and months? Sadly, my attorney is on vacation (of all the times to go on vacation...) and his paralegal doesn't feel comfortable telling me what to expect next...
    • By VietnamVetSis
      Has anyone had any luck with claiming Sleep Apnea as secondary to Hypertension and/or Arteriosclerotic Heart Disease ?  My husband has service connection for both hypertension and heart disease and now a current diagnosis and medical equipment for sleep apnea.  I've read where VA has approved hypertension secondary to sleep apnea and heart disease secondary to sleep apnea, but not the other way around. If anyone has an archived VA citation in this regard, or personal experience, would greatly appreciate hearing about it.    Thanks all.
    • By Shake-n-Bake
      I am still awaiting the notification letter with full details but, according to eBenefits, they have denied my claim for hypertension secondary to PTSD. The basis of my claim was not so much that the PTSD caused the hypertension (although I suspect it may have), but that my PTSD aggravates the hypertension. It looks like the decision was based on the C&P examiners opinion that my hypertension is caused by my weight, rather than my PTSD. His notes do not address the issue of the one aggravating the other. I guess I'll appeal the decision, although I'm not sure how that process works, or really what I'll be able to say, or do, differently to help my case. Below is a redacted copy of the C&P exam notes, if anyone would be so kind as to offer an opinion and/or advice. It bears noting that in his remarks, he states that in 2009 I weighed 160 pounds and my blood pressure was normal. However, I thought 140/90 was the upper threshold of normal. The evidence he is citing reflects a reading of 142/86. Does the VA use a different criteria, because 142 is not normal by generally accepted hypertension parameters. Also, he states that the BP readings used to diagnose are not present, but I did the medical records from when I was diagnosed and they show a reading of 150/110 at that time. So, I would have to say that his statement is factually untrue, based on that the evidence that I submitted.
      ---------------------------
      Hypertension Disability Benefits Questionnaire Name of patient/Veteran: Shake-N-Bank Is this DBQ being completed in conjunction with a VA 21-2507, C&P Examination Request? [X] Yes [ ] No ACE and Evidence Review ----------------------- Indicate method used to obtain medical information to complete this document: [X] In-person examination Evidence Review --------------- Evidence reviewed (check all that apply): [X] VA e-folder (VBMS or Virtual VA) [X] CPRS 1. Diagnosis ------------ Does the Veteran now have or has he/she ever been diagnosed with hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension based on the following criteria: [X] Yes [ ] No [X] Hypertension ICD code: 00 Date of diagnosis: 2013 2. Medical history ------------------ a. Describe the history (including onset and course) of the Veteran's hypertension condition (brief summary): noted to have high blood pressure and begun on medication on 2013. Had normal pressure in 2009 and weight of 160 pounds. b. Does the Veteran's treatment plan include taking continuous medication for hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, list only those medications used for the diagnosed conditions: lisinopril c. Was the Veteran's initial diagnosis of hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension confirmed by blood pressure (BP) readings taken 2 or more times on at least 3 different days? [ ] Yes [ ] No [X] Unknown d. Does the Veteran have a history of a diastolic BP elevation to predominantly 100 or more? [ ] Yes [X] No 3. Current blood pressure readings ---------------------------------- Systolic Diastolic Blood pressure reading 1: 138 / 82 Date: 8/23/2017 Blood pressure reading 2: 122 / 78 Date: 8/23/2017 Blood pressure reading 3: 126 / 80 Date: 8/2017 Average Blood Pressure Reading: 128 / 80 4. Other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs, symptoms and scars ----------------------------------------------------------------------- a. Does the Veteran have any other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs or symptoms related to the conditions listed in the Diagnosis Section above? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, describe (brief summary): 8/11/2017 209 lb b. Does the Veteran have any scars (surgical or otherwise) related to any conditions or to the treatment of any conditions listed in the Diagnosis Section above? [ ] Yes [X] No c. Comments, if any: No response provided 5. Functional impact -------------------- Does the Veteran's hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension impact his or her ability to work? [ ] Yes [X] No 6. Remarks, if any ------------------ No remarks provided. **************************************************************************** Medical Opinion Disability Benefits Questionnaire Name of patient/Veteran: Shake-N-Bake ACE and Evidence Review ----------------------- Indicate method used to obtain medical information to complete this document: [X] In-person examination Evidence Review --------------- Evidence reviewed (check all that apply): [X] VA e-folder (VBMS or Virtual VA) [X] CPRS MEDICAL OPINION SUMMARY ----------------------- RESTATEMENT OF REQUESTED OPINION: a. Opinion from general remarks: relation of hypertension to PTSD b. Indicate type of exam for which opinion has been requested: hypertension TYPE OF MEDICAL OPINION PROVIDED: [ MEDICAL OPINION FOR SECONDARY SERVICE CONNECTION ] b. The condition claimed is less likely than not (less than 50% probability) proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service connected condition. c. Rationale: The pressures used to diagnose hypertension are not available but apparently were there in 2013 when he was started on medication. He has gained nearly 40 pounds of weight since 23009. This is the most likely caused of his hypertension and the PTSD is less likely than not. ************************************************************************* /es/ FRANCIS M REMBERT MD
    • By Shake-n-Bake
      I just had two C&P exams this morning and am trying to keep a positive mindset, but the glass looks half empty to me. Maybe someone else can offer some insight on my situation.
      Since April, I have been rated at 60%; 50% for PTSD and 10% for tinnitus. The claims process for those went pretty smoothly, really, and I was awarded my disability ratings in very short time. I have since then filed three additional claims. My intent to file was back in April, but I submitted the claims on July 25. These three claims are for hypertension secondary to PTSD, sleep apnea secondary to PTSD and for hearing loss. Today I had my C&P exams for the hearing loss and hypertension. I have heard nothing about scheduling a C&P for the sleep apnea.
      My first exam this morning was for hypertension. I was diagnosed with hypertension, by a private doctor, about 4 years ago and have been on medication since then and am currently being treated by the VA for my hypertension. My hypertension isn't very severe, but it is outside of normal parameters and has been this way consistently for quite a few years. Even though I wasn't officially diagnosed until 2013, I have (and submitted) evidence of prior medical records that show high blood pressure readings well before my actual diagnosis. I don't think I meet the criteria for anything more than a 0% rating, but that's all I really want, or need. I believe I have bradycardia (abnormally low pulse), as a result of my high blood pressure. My blood pressure has always fluctuated and spiked in relation to my PTSD symptoms, so I certainly think the PTSD aggravates my blood pressure, but I don't feel good about my C&P exam from this morning. The doctor was one of the weirdest people I've come across at the VA, so it was hard to get a good read on him. All he did was take my blood pressure 3, or maybe 4, times, all from my right arm, while I was seated. He wanted to know when I was first diagnosed and how many times they had taken my blood pressure during the visit in which I was diagnosed. I told him it was in 2013 and, although I didn't recall how many times they took a blood pressure reading, I did remember how high it was when I was diagnosed. I tried to discuss the evidence I had submitted to support my having actually had high blood pressure before my 2013 diagnosis, but he shut me down. He said anything that I sent in with my claim wasn't his concern. All he was doing was "checking the boxes" on my blood pressure exam and someone else would look at everything that was submitted. This doesn't make sense to me. Isn't the purpose of the C&P exam to look at the evidence, as well render an opinion? I have already been diagnosed with hypertension and am receiving treatment. I'm guessing my blood pressure readings from the C&P exam are within normal parameters...that's what the medication is for. I don't understand the point of putting me through this dog and pony show, but I certainly didn't walk out of there feeling good about it.
      Next, I had my audiology exam for my hearing loss claim. I just had a audiology exam a little less than 2 months ago from a VA contractor and was subsequently issued hearing aids from the VA about a month ago. As I mentioned earlier, I already receive compensation for tinnitus, so part of me feels like the VA has already conceded that I had sufficient noise exposure in-service to cause damage, but I have also heard of people winning on tinnitus and losing on hearing loss. Since I had just recently had an audiology exam, I was only given an abbreviated C&P exam for my hearing. The audiologist stated that the contractor had not "submitted a full report", or something to that effect, so she only needed to do a partial test today. She asked me a little about my in-service noise exposure, as well as about my civilian occupations. It was over pretty quickly. I didn't feel quite as bad, or confused about that one as the hypertension C&P, but both of them seemed rushed and indifferent. 
      When I got home, I logged in to eBenefits to check on something unrelated and decided to look at my claim status. It had gone from Gathering Evidence to Preparation for Decision, since the last time I had checked on it. How could it be in Preparation for Decision? Mind you, I just had two C&P exams a couple of hours before. There is no way those reports had been sent in and considered already, so it had to have moved to Preparation for Decision a day, or more ago. Since I have not been scheduled for a C&P exam for my SA secondary to PTSD, I suspect now that they don't plan to give me an exam for the sleep apnea. The fact that they'd already moved my claim to Preparation for Decision before my exams leaves me with the impression that my claims are doomed to denial. Realistically, both the hypertension and hearing loss should each be rated at 0%, so that won't get me an increase in disability pay anyway, but a positive decision on the SA would. I also need the 0% ones, though, because of their relationship to other problems I have.
      I'm a little confused by all of this and am certainly not feeling hopeful about my prospects at this point. Am I jumping to conclusion prematurely, or am I making a reasonable conclusion that things aren't going my way? It's been less than 30 days since my claims were filed and it's already been moved to Preparation for Decision before my C&P exams. I don't know what that means, but it doesn't seem good.
  • Ads

  • Our picks

    • I already get compensation for bladder cancer for Camp Lejeune Water issue, now that it is added to Agent Orange does it mean that the VA should pay me the difference between Camp Lejeune and 1992 when I retired from the Marine Corps or do I have to re-apply for it for Agent Orange, or will the VA look at at current cases already receiving bladder cancer compensation. I’m considered 100% Disabled Permanently 
      • 16 replies
    • 5,10, 20 Rule
      The 5, 10, 20 year rules...



      Five Year Rule) If you have had the same rating for five or more years, the VA cannot reduce your rating unless your condition has improved on a sustained basis. All the medical evidence, not just the reexamination report, must support the conclusion that your improvement is more than temporary.



      Ten Year Rule) The 10 year rule is after 10 years, the service connection is protected from being dropped.



      Twenty Year Rule) If your disability has been continuously rated at or above a certain rating level for 20 or more years, the VA cannot reduce your rating unless it finds the rating was based on fraud. This is a very high standard and it's unlikely the rating would get reduced.



      If you are 100% for 20 years (Either 100% schedular or 100% TDIU - Total Disability based on Individual Unemployability or IU), you are automatically Permanent & Total (P&T). And, that after 20 years the total disability (100% or IU) is protected from reduction for the remainder of the person's life. "M-21-1-IX.ii.2.1.j. When a P&T Disability Exists"



      At 55, P&T (Permanent & Total) or a few other reasons the VBA will not initiate a review. Here is the graphic below for that. However if the Veteran files a new compensation claim or files for an increase, then it is YOU that initiated to possible review.



      NOTE: Until a percentage is in place for 10 years, the service connection can be removed. After that, the service connection is protected.



      ------



      Example for 2020 using the same disability rating



      1998 - Initially Service Connected @ 10%



      RESULT: Service Connection Protected in 2008



      RESULT: 10% Protected from reduction in 2018 (20 years)



      2020 - Service Connection Increased @ 30%



      RESULT: 30% is Protected from reduction in 2040 (20 years)
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 53 replies
    • Post in New BVA Grants
      While the BVA has some discretion here, often they "chop up claims".  For example, BVA will order SERVICE CONNECTION, and leave it up to the VARO the disability percent and effective date.  

      I hate that its that way.  The board should "render a decision", to include service connection, disability percentage AND effective date, so we dont have to appeal "each" of those issues over then next 15 years on a hamster wheel.  
        • Like
    • Finally heard back that I received my 100% Overall rating and a 100% PTSD rating Following my long appeal process!

      My question is this, given the fact that my appeal was on the advanced docket and is an “Expedited” appeal, what happens now and how long(ish) is the process from here on out with retro and so forth? I’ve read a million things but nothing with an expedited appeal status.

      Anyone deal with this situation before? My jump is from 50 to 100 over the course of 2 years if that helps some. I only am asking because as happy as I am, I would be much happier to pay some of these bills off!
        • Like
      • 18 replies
    • I told reviewer that I had a bad C&P, and that all I wanted was a fair shake, and she even said, that was what she was all ready viewed for herself. The first C&P don't even  reflect my Treatment in the VA PTSD clinic. In my new C&P I was only asked about symptoms, seeing shit, rituals, nightmares, paying bills and about childhood, but didn't ask about details of it. Just about twenty question, and  nothing about stressor,
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines