Citation Nr: 21012077 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 19-00 181 DATE: March 3, 2021 REMANDED Special monthly compensation based on the need for aid and attendance/house-bound status (SMC A&A/HB) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably in the United States Marine Corps from October 1984 to July 1992. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2017 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Appeals (VA) Regional Office (RO). This appeal is being adjudicated under the legacy appellate framework. The Veteran testified at a personal hearing before the Board in January 2021. SMC A&A/HB is remanded. At issue is whether the Veteran is entitled to SMC A&A/HB. The Veteran has provided testimony in a January 2021 personal hearing before the Board suggesting that he might be entitled to SMC A&A/HB. See Transcript. Nevertheless, these are matters of medical complexity, and the Veteran is not a competent medical expert. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d. 1372. The Veteran’s testimony is sufficient, however, to trigger VA’s duty to assist, and this matter must be remanded for a VA examination in order to evaluate the Veteran’s claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination (or if necessary, a phone interview and a medical opinion based on the evidence of record) in order to address the following: (a.) Does the Veteran manifest an inability to dress or undress himself or to keep himself (herself) ordinarily clean and presentable? Why or why not? (b.) Does the Veteran manifest the frequent need of adjustment of any special prosthetic or orthopedic appliances which by reason of the particular disability cannot be done without aid (this will not include the adjustment of appliances which normal persons would be unable to adjust without aid, such as supports, belts, lacing at the back, etc.)? Why or why not? (c.) Does the Veteran manifest the inability of to feed himself through loss of coordination of upper extremities or through extreme weakness? Why or why not? (d.) Does the Veteran manifest and inability to attend to the wants of nature? (e.) Does the Veteran have an incapacity, physical or mental, which requires care or assistance on a regular basis to protect the claimant from hazards or dangers incident to his or her daily environment? (f.) Does the Veteran manifest a need for personal health-care services (including but not limited to physical therapy, administration of injections, placement of indwelling catheters, and the changing of sterile dressings, or like functions which require professional health-care training or the regular supervision of a trained health-care professional to perform) provided on a daily basis in the veteran‘s home by a person who is licensed (to include but not limited to a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, a registered nurse, a licensed practical nurse, or a physical therapist licensed to practice by a State or political subdivision thereof) to provide such services or who provides such services under the regular supervision of a licensed health-care professional (following a regimen of personal health-care services prescribed by a health-care professional and consulting, either in-person or by phone) with that health-care professional at least once each month to monitor the prescribed regimen)? Why or why not? If so, please identify what services that the Veteran needs and what level of medical professional is required to provide this service. (g.) If the Veteran does manifest a need for the personal health-care services from a health-care professional described above, then, absent this care, would the Veteran require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other residential institutional care? Why or why not? (h.) What is the medical significance, if any, that the Veteran has been found incompetence to manage his own financial affairs? Why or why not? DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Seaton 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.