Citation Nr: 18161333 Decision Date: 12/31/18 Archive Date: 12/31/18 DOCKET NO. 94-29 322 DATE: December 31, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on being housebound is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1965 to February 1968. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for aid and attendance and being housebound is remanded. In a decision issued in March 2016, the Board denied entitlement to SMC based on the need for aid and attendance and on account of being housebound. The Board determined the following: that the Veteran is not service-connected for a disability productive of blindness in both eyes with 5/200 visual acuity or less or concentric contraction of the visual field to 5 degrees or less, is not a patient in a nursing home, and is not bedridden at any time since April 26, 1989; his service-connected disabilities are not so disabling to render him unable to care for his daily needs or protect himself from hazards incident to his environment at any time since April 26, 1989; and he is rated 100 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but his additional service-connected disabilities are not independently ratable at 60 percent, and he is not otherwise permanently housebound by reason of his service-connected disabilities at any time since April 26, 1989. In a May 2018 Memorandum Decision, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) decided that the Board’s finding as to the adequacy of the Veteran’s March 2008 VA opinion was unclear, and the Board failed to reflect on whether the August 2014 VA examiner provided only a current assessment of the Veteran’s condition or a retrospective assessment covering the period on appeal. Particularly, the Court noted that the Board acknowledged that “being substantially confined to the home means inability to leave to earn a living,” but it failed to explain how the March 2008 opinion’s inadequacy as to the Veteran’s “inability to leave [the house] to earn a living” would not also render the opinion inadequate as to whether the Veteran was “substantially confined to the home.” With respect to the August 2014 VA examination, the Court found that the Board did not explain how the opinion would allow an assessment of the Veteran’s housebound status for SMC purposes over the entire course of the appeal (since April 26, 1989). In addition, the Court concluded that the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to SMC based upon housebound status under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s)(2) was the only issue appealed by the Veteran. As such, the claim of entitlement to SMC based on the need for aid and attendance of another person or based upon a service-connected disability rated as total and additional service-connected disabilities independently rated at 60 percent or more under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s)(1) were abandoned by the Veteran and dismissed by the Court. The issue above reflects this change. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all updated records of VA or adequately identified private evaluations or treatment the Veteran has received for his service-connected disabilities. 2. After obtaining any outstanding medical treatment records, schedule the Veteran for a VA Aid and Attendance/Housebound examination to determine whether his service-connected disabilities render him housebound. The examiner should review the claims file and note such review in the examination report, and the examiner is asked to offer the following opinion: As a result of service-connected disabilities, is the Veteran substantially confined to his dwelling or the immediate premises as a direct result of his service-connected disabilities; that is, do these disabilities cause him to be unable to leave his home in order to earn an income? The examiner must also provide a retrospective opinion with regard to this matter looking back to April 1989 and determine whether the Veteran was housebound at any time during this time period, even if it was temporary. A complete rationale should be provided for this opinion. 3. Readjudicate the claim for entitlement to SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s)(2). R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD I. Warren, Associate Counsel