Citation Nr: 18159421 Decision Date: 12/19/18 Archive Date: 12/19/18 DOCKET NO. 17-02 514 DATE: December 19, 2018 ORDER Eligibility for financial assistance in the purchase of one automobile or other conveyance and/or necessary automobile adaptive equipment is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities result in the permanent loss of use of his feet. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing eligibility for financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance and necessary automobile adaptive equipment are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 3901, 3902, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.350, 3.808.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty October 1964 to September 1966. Financial assistance may be provided to an “eligible person” in acquiring an automobile or other conveyance and adaptive equipment, or adaptive equipment only. 38 U.S.C. § 3902(a)(b). Eligibility for assistance to purchase a vehicle and adaptive equipment is warranted where one of the following exists as the result of injury or disease incurred or aggravated during active service: (1) loss or permanent loss of use of one or both feet; (2) loss or permanent loss of use of one or both hands; (3) permanent impairment of vision of both eyes, meaning central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye, with corrective glasses, or central visual acuity of more than 20/200 if there is a field defect in which the peripheral field has contracted to such an extent that the widest diameter of visual field subtends an angular distance no greater than 20 degrees in the better eye; (4) severe burn injury precluding effective operation of an automobile; (5) amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; or, (6) for adaptive equipment only, ankylosis of one or both knees or one or both hips. 38 U.S.C. § 3901; 38 C.F.R. § 3.808. The term “loss of use of a hand or foot” is defined as existing when “no effective function remains other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation stump at the site of election below the elbow or knee with the use of a suitable prosthetic appliance.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(a)(2). The Veteran has previously been granted service connection for the following: congestive heart failure, residuals of right knee injury with arthritis, residuals of left knee injury with arthritis, type II diabetes mellitus, chin scar, and hypertension. When considering the evidence of record under the law and regulations cited above, the Board finds that the Veteran at least as likely as not meets the criteria for eligibility for financial assistance in the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance and/or automobile adaptive equipment. The Veteran’s VA treatment records document that he is unable to walk and is essentially bedbound. VA home based primary care (HBPC) records beginning in March 2018 record that the Veteran has been unable to walk or to stand independently since his hospital stay in December 2017. A VA HBPC note from April 2018 documented the Veteran’s report of being unable to move or feel his lower extremities very well. Physical examination demonstrated that the Veteran lacked sensation in his lower extremities and was unable to perform any lower extremity movements when requested. It was also noted that the Veteran had altered foot shape bilaterally, consistent with diabetic motor neuropathy. The Board notes that the Veteran was previously granted special monthly compensation based on his need for regular aid and attendance due to functional impairment caused by his diabetes and associated complications as well as his degenerative arthritis of the bilateral knees. When considering the January 2014 examination upon which that prior decision was based, and documentation of the Veteran’s significant bilateral lower extremity sensory and motor deficits, thought by his medical care providers to be related to his diabetes mellitus, the evidence is found to have at least reached the point of equipoise to allow for resolution of the doubt in the Veteran’s favor. A grant of the Veteran’s claim is therefore warranted. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Solomon, Counsel