Citation Nr: 21025625 Decision Date: 04/28/21 Archive Date: 04/28/21 DOCKET NO. 10-41 896 DATE: April 28, 2021 ORDER The Veteran is not competent to handle disbursement of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) funds; the appeal is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage personal affairs, including the disbursement of funds, without limitation. CONCLUSION OF LAW It is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the Veteran is not competent to handle disbursement of VA funds. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5502 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.353 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran, who is the appellant, had active service from August 1970 to December 1974. This matter came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2009 rating decision of the VA Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida, which continued the prior finding that the Veteran was not competent to handle disbursement of VA funds. The Veteran testified from St. Petersburg, Florida, at a December 2013 Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The hearing transcript has been associated with the record. The Board remanded the appeal in April 2014 and October 2018. The Veteran is not competent to handle disbursement of VA funds The Veteran asserts that he is capable of managing his own VA funds. See, e.g., February 2014 Board Hearing Transcript. Under VA regulations, a mentally incompetent person is one who, because of injury or disease, lacks the mental capacity to contract or to manage his or her own affairs, including disbursement of funds without limitation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.353 (a) (2019). Unless the medical evidence is clear, convincing, and leaves no doubt as to the person’s incompetency, the rating agency will not make a decision of incompetency without a definite expression regarding the question by the responsible medical authorities. Determinations as to incompetency should be based upon all evidence of record, and there should be a consistent relationship between the percentage of disability, facts relating to commitment or hospitalization, and the holding of incompetency. 38 C.F.R. § 3.353 (c). There is a presumption in favor of competency, and where reasonable doubt arises regarding a beneficiary’s mental capacity to contract or to manage affairs, including the disbursement of funds without limitation, such doubt will be resolved in the veteran’s favor. The Veteran is service-connected for schizophrenia, which has been rated as 100 percent disabling since March 1981. A January 1991 rating decision found the Veteran to be incompetent since March 1991. In October 2008, the Veteran requested to be declared competent to handle his funds. An April 2015 VA nursing telephone encounter note indicated that the Veteran’s daughter requested assistance in relocating the Veteran to live with her She stated that the Veteran had had the same guardian due to his schizophrenia for almost 40 years and she felt that the guardian was negligent. She reported that the Veteran was on probation for a hit-and-run car accident because he had cocaine in his system. At a July 2015 VA competency examination, the Veteran displayed a number of severe psychological symptoms, including impaired judgment, gross impairment in thought process or communication, and persistent delusions or hallucinations, and the VA examiner found that the Veteran was totally occupationally and socially impaired. The VA examiner opined that, due to the severity of the symptoms and the Veteran’s financial history, the Veteran was not cognitively and emotionally able to handle his own financial affairs at that time. In October 2017, a VA nurse practitioner conducted a clinical review of the Veteran’s medical chart and found that the appointment of a fiduciary was still appropriate at that time. An April 2018 VA psychiatry note by Dr. C.H. indicates that the Veteran displayed minimal psychiatric symptoms. As such, Dr. C.H. found that the Veteran did not need a fiduciary at that time. In a May 2018 note, Dr. C.H. stated that the Veteran was competent to manage all his own affairs and was no longer in need of a fiduciary. A June 2019 Circuit Court Order held that, based on the May 2018 note from the Veteran’s psychiatrist, the Veteran was no longer in need of a guardian of his property. At a September 2019 VA mental disorders examination, the examiner noted symptoms of anxiety, suspiciousness, impairment of short and long-term memory, poor focus, difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, and persistent delusions or hallucinations. The examiner opined that these and other symptoms resulted in total occupational and social impairment. The examiner also opined that the Veteran was not capable of managing his financial affairs. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran presented with psychotic disorganization, including delusionality, history of hallucinations, and rambling communications. The examiner stated that “it does not appear that he is capable of managing funds in any consistent manner.” Having considered the medical and lay evidence of record, the Board finds the opinions of the July 2015 and September 2019 VA examiners to be persuasive and probative against a finding of the Veteran's competency to independently manage his financial affairs, including disbursement of funds, without limitation. These opinions were based on a review of the claims file, examination of the Veteran, and supported by articulated medical explanations that are consistent with the remaining record. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 302-04 (2008) (holding that it is the factually accurate, fully articulated, sound reasoning for the conclusion that contributes to the probative value to a medical opinion). In comparison, the opinions of Dr. C.H. are less persuasive because he provided little medical or psychological findings pertinent to the issue of the Veteran’s competency. Further, his notes significantly lacked details regarding the Veteran’s psychiatric history and cognitive function, and did not provide a sufficient explanation to support the opinion that the Veteran was competent to handle disbursement of funds for VA purposes. The Board recognizes that the Circuit Court relied on Dr. C.H’s May 2018 note in removing the Veteran’s guardian; however, there is no indication that the Circuit Court reviewed the Veteran’s claims file, including the pertinent VA examination reports. (Continued on the next page)   Having found the July 2015 and September 2019 VA opinions more persuasive and probative than the opinions of Dr. C.H., the Board also finds that the July 2015 and September 2019 VA opinions clearly and convincingly rebut the presumption of the Veteran's competency to handle the disbursement of VA funds. Although the Veteran has asserted he is currently able to manage his own financial affairs, the most probative medical evidence of record clearly and convincingly shows that the severity of the Veteran’s schizophrenia prevents him from being able to do so. As such, entitlement to the restoration of competency status for the purposes of handling VA benefit payments is denied. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.353(d). S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Roya Bahrami, 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.