Citation Nr: 21006826 Decision Date: 02/05/21 Archive Date: 02/05/21 DOCKET NO. 16-17 963 DATE: February 5, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for regular aid and attendance, or at the housebound rate, is remanded REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from April 1962 to February 1965. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in San Diego, California. This case was previously before the Board in May 2019, when it was remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. After taking further action, the AOJ confirmed and continued the prior denial and returned the case to the Board. Entitlement to SMC based on the need for regular aid and attendance, or at the housebound rate. Although the Board sincerely regrets the additional delay, another remand is necessary to ensure that there is a complete record upon which to decide the Veteran’s claim and to afford him every possible consideration. In May 2019, the Board remanded this case, in part, to obtain a VA housebound and aid and attendance examination. The Board’s remand included specific questions for a VA examiner to address related to the claim for SMC. A VA medical examination and opinion was obtained in November 2019. However, the examiner made what appear to be contradictory findings. In an examination report, the examiner noted, among other things, that the Veteran was not permanently bedridden, that he could travel beyond his domicile, and that he was able to groom himself, drive, and perform all activities of daily living. However, in an accompanying medical opinion, the examiner stated that it “appears [V]eterans ‘Special Monthly Compensation is due to service connected disabilities including amputation of the left lower extremity.” Significantly, the examiner did not provide a clear opinion with respect to whether the Veteran suffered from mental or physical incapacity which required care or assistance on a regular basis to protect him from hazards or dangers incident to his daily environment, as requested in the remand. In light of these inadequacies, further development is necessary. See D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain copies of records pertaining to any relevant VA treatment the Veteran has received since the time that such records were last procured, following the procedures set forth in 38 C.F.R.§ 3.159. The evidence obtained, if any, should be associated with the record. 2. After the foregoing development has been completed to the extent possible, make arrangements to return the claims file to the VA examiner who previously evaluated the Veteran in November 2019. The examiner should be asked to review the expanded record and prepare a supplemental report clarifying her statement to the effect that it “appears [V]eterans ‘Special Monthly Compensation is due to service connected disabilities including amputation of the left lower extremity.” The examiner should be asked to indicate whether it was her intent to convey by that statement that the Veteran is, in fact, in need of the regular aid and attendance of another person as a result of functional impairment associated with his service-connected disabilities, without regard to non-service-connected impairments. If that was the examiner’s intent, she should be asked to provide further details with respect to the basis for that finding, to particularly include whether it was the examiner’s opinion that the Veteran’s service-connected impairments required care or assistance on a regular basis to protect him from hazards or dangers incident to his daily environment. If the November 2019 examiner is no longer employed by VA or is otherwise unable to provide the opinion(s) requested, arrange to obtain clarifying information from another qualified examiner. The need for another examination and/or telephonic or video interview of the Veteran is left to the discretion of the examiner selected to offer the requested opinions. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. After completing the above, and any other action or development as may be indicated by any response received as a consequence of the actions taken in the preceding paragraphs, the issue on appeal should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If any benefit sought remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. DAVID A. BRENNINGMEYER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Smith, 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.