Citation Nr: 21063560
Decision Date: 10/14/21	Archive Date: 10/14/21

DOCKET NO. 12-06 581
DATE: October 14, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(l) and (s) for necessity for aid and attendance of another person or housebound status is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from March 1965 to July 1978. He also had service in the Air Force National Guard.

1. Entitlement to special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (l) and (s) for necessity for aid and attendance of another person or housebound status is remanded.

This appeal stems from the Veteran's November 2009 claim for increased ratings for his knee disabilities and a subsequent assertion that he was eligible for special monthly compensation. The Board issued a decision on the appropriate ratings for the knee disabilities and denied special monthly compensation in September 2020. The Veteran appealed only the denial of special monthly compensation to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which granted a joint motion for partial remand in June 2021. The joint motion asserts that the Board erred in denying special monthly compensation by failing to provide adequate reasons and bases, specifically failing to properly assess whether the Veteran met the criteria for total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) based solely on his posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) allowing him to satisfy the criteria under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) pursuant to the Court's holding in Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008). The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) granted TDIU compensation effective May 1, 2005, based on the combination of impairment from the Veteran's PTSD and knee disabilities. Additionally, the AOJ has granted the Veteran special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) for various periods where he received temporary 100 percent ratings, including from December 6, 2013 to February 1, 2016, and August 28, 2018 to October 1, 2019.

Regarding the question of TDIU based on PTSD alone, the record shows that the Veteran has not had an examination for PTSD during the period on appeal. The AOJ granted the 70 percent rating for PTSD in a February 2006 rating decision based on evidence from VA treatment records in 2004 and 2005. These records, and subsequent mental health treatment records, do not discuss how the Veteran's PTSD could affect him in an occupational environment because the Veteran was not working at that time. The Board finds a new examination would be helpful to identify how the Veteran's PTSD would affect him in a work setting. 

Additionally, the Veteran last had an examination assessing his need for the aid and attendance of another person in March 2010. The Board finds a new examination should be obtained that assesses the Veteran's ability to dress, undress, keep ordinarily clean and presentable, feed himself, attend to the wants of nature, or protect himself against the hazards or dangers incident to his daily environment. 38 U.S.C. § 1114(l); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(b), 3.352(a); see also Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444, 447-48 (2000). 

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain and associate with the claims file any outstanding VA treatment records.

2. Obtain an examination and medical opinion addressing how the Veteran's PTSD would affect him in an occupational environment throughout the period on appeal from 2009 to present. The examiner should explain what limitations the Veteran would experience from his PTSD in a work environment similar to his history working as a financial analyst. 

3. Obtain an examination on the Veteran's need for aid and attendance of another person based on service-connected disabilities. The examiner should address whether his service-connected disabilities impair his ability to dress, undress, keep ordinarily clean and presentable, feed himself, attend to the wants of nature, or protect himself against the hazards or dangers incident to his daily environment. 

 

 

A. S. CARACCIOLO

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A.P. Armstrong

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.