Citation Nr: 20002845 Decision Date: 01/13/20 Archive Date: 01/13/20 DOCKET NO. 18-33 943A DATE: January 13, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for aid and attendance is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from November 1967 to November 1970. Entitlement to special monthly compensation based on the need for aid and attendance is remanded. The RO last considered the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to SMC based on the need for aid and attendance in an October 2019 Supplemental Statement of the Case. In a November 2019 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for diabetic peripheral neuropathy with a 30 percent disability rating prior to September 17, 2019 and a 60 percent disability rating thereafter; peripheral vascular disease of the right lower extremity with a 20 percent disability rating; and entitlement to a TDIU, effective September 23, 2016. The most recent VA medical opinion addressing the Veteran’s need for aid and attendance based on service-connected disabilities is dated in April 2018. Because additional disabilities have been found to be service-connected since this time, a new VA examination is needed to determine whether any or all of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities, including those addressed in the November 2019 rating decision, render him in need of the aid and assistance of another person. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA aid and attendance examination. The claims file must be made available to the examining clinician in conjunction with the examination. All pertinent symptoms and findings must be reported in detail. Following review of the evidence of record, the clinical examination results, the October 2016 and August 2018 private opinions finding the Veteran in need of the aid and assistance of another person, and the Veteran’s statements of record, the examiner must identify the extent to which the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities of diabetic nephropathy; posttraumatic stress disorder; coronary artery disease; diabetes mellitus, type II; peripheral vascular disease of the right and left lower extremities; residual fragment wound of the left posterior thoracic wall; residual fragment wound of the right knee with cortical defect, medial femoral condyle, and traumatic arthritis; diabetic retinopathy and cataracts; tinnitus; retained metallic foreign body in the soft tissues of the left lower thigh; left lower leg residual scar; right ankle residual scar due to fragment wound; right hand residual scar due to fragment wound; decreased sensation in the right anterior knee; and bilateral hearing loss impact his capability for self-care. The examiner’s assessment must include, but is not limited to, evaluation of such conditions as: the Veteran’s ability or inability to dress or undress himself or to keep himself ordinarily clean and presentable; his ability or inability to feed himself; his ability or inability to attend to the wants of nature; and any incapacity, physical or mental, which requires care or assistance on a regular basis to protect him from hazards or dangers incident to his daily environment. A complete rationale for the opinion must be provided. The examiner is asked to specifically discuss the October 2016 and August 2018 private opinions finding the Veteran in need of the aid and assistance of another person, and the Veteran’s lay statements of record discussing his symptoms and the limitations caused by his service-connected disabilities. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms capable of lay observation. 2. Thereafter, adjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued and he should be afforded the requisite opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate action. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Katz, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.