Citation Nr: 20044559 Decision Date: 07/02/20 Archive Date: 07/02/20 DOCKET NO. 15-05 267 DATE: July 2, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for regular aid and attendance of another person or on being housebound is remanded. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service from May 1950 to May 1953. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from the April 2013 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include vascular dementia and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), SMC, and a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned in April 2018; a transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. This case was last before the Board in July 2018, at which time it was remanded to the RO for further development and readjudication. Those actions completed, the case has been returned to the Board for further appellate review. While on remand, in an August 2019 decision, the RO granted service connection for PTSD and assigned a 100 percent disability rating effective June 30, 2011. Additionally, in a March 2020 decision, the RO granted service connection for vascular dementia and continued the assigned 100 percent rating for PTSD with vascular dementia effective June 30, 2011. As this constitutes a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal, the claim is not in appellate status. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). Also, in the August 2019 decision, the RO determined that the Veteran’s claim for a TDIU was moot as the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities are evaluated as 100 percent disabling and no potential entitlement to an earlier effective date for a total disability evaluation based on a grant of TDIU was warranted by the evidence of record. At the outset, the Board notes that in March 2020 the Veteran filed a Supplemental Claim for SMC based on the need for regular aid and attendance pursuant to the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). However, the Veteran did not properly complete the form, as he did not check the box on the Supplemental Claim to opt in to the AMA system from the March 2020 supplemental statement of the claim (SSOC). The RO in the March 2020 SSOC notified the Veteran of his procedural and appellate rights and instructed the Veteran to ensure that the SOC/SSOC Opt-in box on the appropriate form is checked. The RO explained that this block indicates that the Veteran is submitting his appeal as an opt-in from the legacy appeals process. Again, the Veteran did not check the box on the Supplemental Claim to opt in to the AMA from the legacy appeals process. As such, the Board will continue to consider his claim under the legacy system. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to SMC based on the need for regular aid and attendance of another person or on being housebound is remanded. VA scheduled the Veteran for a new VA examination to determine whether the Veteran is housebound (confined to the home or immediate premises) or in need of the regular aid and attendance of another person due to his PTSD with major vascular neurocognitive disorder disability. The VA examination cancellation correspondence received March 2020 indicates that the scheduled examination was cancelled as the Veteran did not show for the examination. The March 2020 Carolina Family Chiropractic letter states that the Veteran had a scheduled appointment on March 8, 2020 and he did not believe the office was open on a Sunday and instead went in on Monday, March 9, 2020, for his evaluation. The physician noted that her office had documents showing the appointment was scheduled for Sunday and contacted Veterans Evaluations Services to determine how the Veteran could obtain a rescheduled appointment. She further stated that he was directed to contact VA to move forward with a new appointment. Additionally, the Veteran submitted a Statement in Support of Claim form, dated March 2020, requesting another examination explaining that he did not attend his VA examination scheduled on March 8, 2020, due to a misunderstanding about the scheduled date. The Board finds that the Veteran has provided good cause for his failure to attend the VA examination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a). As such, the claim is remanded in order to obtain a VA examination to determine whether the Veteran is in need of the regular aid and attendance of another person or of being housebound due to his PTSD with major vascular neurocognitive disorder disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure that the Veteran is scheduled for an appropriate examination and/or medical opinion to determine whether the Veteran is housebound or in need of the regular aid and attendance of another person as a result of his service-connected PTSD with major vascular neurocognitive disorder disability. The claims file, including a copy of this decision, must be made available and reviewed by the examiner. In determining the need for aid and attendance, the examiner’s considerations must include, but are not limited to, whether the Veteran is not able, due to his service-connected PTSD with major vascular neurocognitive disorder disability, to dress or undress himself, keep himself ordinarily clean and presentable, feed himself, attend to the wants of nature, and/or protect himself from the hazards or dangers of his daily environment. (Continued on the next page)   With regard to housebound status, the examiner must further opine whether the Veteran’s service-connected PTSD with major vascular neurocognitive disorder disability alone substantially confine him to his dwelling and the immediate premises or, if institutionalized, to the ward or clinical area, and it is reasonably certain that the disability or disabilities and resultant confinement will continue throughout his lifetime. 2. After completion of the above, review the expanded record, including the evidence entered since the most recent statement of the case, and determine whether the claim may be granted. If any benefit sought remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative with a supplemental statement of the case. The appropriate period should be allowed for response before the appeal is returned to the Board. JAMES G. REINHART Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Williams, Associate 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.