Citation Nr: 20030186 Decision Date: 04/29/20 Archive Date: 04/29/20 DOCKET NO. 15-08 761A DATE: April 29, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to restoration of competency, for the purposes of handling the disbursement of funds associated with the payment of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) compensation benefits is remanded. The issue of the propriety of the appointment of a fiduciary to manage VA benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND It appears that this case has been returned to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals prematurely. In a July 2018 Board remand, it was noted that February 2018 rating decision, following the Veteran’s own request for such designation, found that the Veteran was incompetent for VA purposes. In a March 2018 letter of determination, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) appointed the Veteran a fiduciary for his VA compensation benefits. In a July 2018 Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran indicated that he disagreed with the appointment of a fiduciary other than a specific person and also appeared to challenge the propriety of the finding of his incompetency. However, a statement of the case (SOC) as to that issue had not been furnished to the Veteran. The SOC was thereafter sent to the Veteran and an appeal on that issue was accepted by the Board. As to the competency issue, the Board subsequently noted that although the Veteran had indicated wanting a change in his fiduciary, it is clear that the Veteran is appealing the underlying initial status of being incompetent and this was the matter addressed in the SOC. In December 2018 correspondence, the Veteran reported that his excessive spending was under control and that he was no longer consuming alcohol or gambling following a bout with cancer. The Veteran acknowledged his previous request for a fiduciary, but he indicated that he no longer required a fiduciary because he was able to make fiscally responsible decisions. The Board remanded the cases to the AOJ again in September 2019 in order to afford the Veteran a current VA examination to determine his competency. The Veteran was then scheduled to report for a VA examination to determine whether he is competent to manage his funds. However, he did not report and the incompetency finding was confirmed and continued in a January 2020 rating decision due to his failure to report. Thereafter, in February 2020, the Veteran notified the AOJ that he did not receive notice of the examination because all notices were being sent to his fiduciary and he did not get them. He also submitted a supporting statement for competency from his treating provider. See February 2020 letter from L.M., R.N. Documentation in the Veteran’s file does not show that he was scheduled for another examination. Moreover, a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) as to the matters on appeal, which the Board has recharacterized in this remand decision, was never issued and it appears that those matters have not been reconsidered by the AOJ. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Reschedule the Veteran for a psychiatric examination to address the Veteran’s competency to manage his VA benefits payments. Notification should be sent to the Veteran as well as to his fiduciary. Based on the results of the examination and the review of the Veteran’s history, the examiner should opine as to whether the Veteran is competent to handle disbursement of VA funds. The February 2020 statement by L.M., R.N., of Maine Medical Partners should be addressed. 2. The Veterans Service Center Manager (VSCM) should then review the evidentiary record and determine whether additional evidence of the Veteran’s “social, economic and industrial adjustment” is required in order to determine the Veteran’s competency for VA purposes. If so, the VSCM should develop this information pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.353 (b)(2). If not, the VSCM should, by memorandum to be incorporated into the record, set forth the prior participation of the VSCM, Adjudication Officer, or VSO of jurisdiction in the development of the current evidentiary record in satisfaction of the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.353 (b)(2). 3. After all indicated development has been completed, the VSCM should determine whether the evidence indicates that the Veteran may be capable of administering VA funds payable to him without limitation; and, if so, refer that evidence to the rating agency with a statement of his or her findings, as set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.353 (b)(3). 4. If the competency issue is not resolved in the Veteran’s favor, the matter of the proper fiduciary should again be reviewed. The Veteran should be issued an SSOC on these matters. S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Connolly, 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.