Citation Nr: 21039673 Decision Date: 07/01/21 Archive Date: 07/01/21 DOCKET NO. 16-56 542 DATE: July 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for regular aid and attendance of another person or by reason of being housebound is denied. FINDING OF FACT At the time of his death, the Veteran was service-connected for hypertension, rated as 10 percent disabling; and, the evidence does not demonstrate that he was housebound or in need of aid and attendance as a result of his service-connected disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to SMC based on the need for regular aid and attendance of another person or by reason of being housebound have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.350, 3.352 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from November 1948 to November 1951 and from May 1952 to July 1969. The Veteran died in October 2016. The appellant is the Veteran's surviving spouse, who has been properly substituted in this appeal. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a September 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). SMC Aid and Attendance and Housebound The Veteran, prior to his death, and the appellant have asserted that the Veteran was entitled to SMC based on the need for the regular aid and attendance of another person. When the Veteran filed his claim of entitlement to SMC in August 2016, he submitted a VA Form 21-2680, Examination for Housebound Status or Permanent Need for Regular Aid and Attendance, which was completed by his medical provider. At that time, it was noted that the Veteran was able to sit with difficulty, and that he experienced pain in his neck that limited his ability to lift his arms. It was noted that the Veteran had a weakened left grip as a result of swelling from phlebitis and infection, and that he had limited range of shoulder motion as a result of injuries sustained in a fall. Additionally, it was noted that the Veteran was able to finally make a fist with his left hand, but that he still required assistance with feeding himself. The Veteran was noted to have an inability to walk, he was barely able to stand, and he was not able to move into a sitting position without support. The Veteran was noted to be able to leave his home, at most, twice per week in order to get out of the house. The examiner noted that the Veteran would require the assistance another person for locomotion. SMC is available when, as the result of a service-connected disability, a Veteran suffers additional hardships above and beyond those contemplated by VA's schedule for rating disabilities. See 38 U.S.C. § 1114; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.350. Aid and attendance is warranted if there is a factual finding that service-connected disabilities render a Veteran in need of the regular assistance of another person to attend to the activities of daily living (dressing and undressing, hygiene, toileting, etc.) or to protect himself from the normal daily hazards and dangers of his environment. 38 U.S.C. § 1114(l); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.350(b)(3), 3.352(a). Housebound status is warranted if a Veteran has a single service-connected disability rated as 100 percent and either of the following are met: (1) there is additional service-connected disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent, separate and distinct from the 100 percent service-connected disability and involving different anatomical segments or bodily systems; or (2) he/she is permanently housebound because of service-connected disability or disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(i). In this case, the Board finds that the most probative evidence weighs against the claim. Although the evidence indicates that the Veteran needs help with feeding himself, preparing his own meals, bathing, hygiene needs, and other activities of daily living, the evidence does not indicate that the Veteran's inability to perform those activities of daily living by himself is due to his service-connected disability of hypertension. The private treatment records show that the Veteran's hypertension was well controlled. Rather, it appears from the record that the Veteran's nonservice-connected disabilities, including prostate cancer and residuals of such, neck pain, shoulder pain, and a swollen left hand are the disabilities that render the Veteran in need of the regular aid and attendance of another person. However, as discussed, aid and attendance must be required as to the effects of service-connected disabilities. The evidence further shows that the Veteran was not permanently bedridden by his service-connected hypertension. 38 U.S.C. § 1114(l); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.350(b)(3), 3.352(a). Regarding entitlement to SMC based on being housebound, the February 2002 rating decision granted service connection for hypertension with an evaluation of 10 percent effective March 23, 2001. Thus, he did not meet the schedular requirements for housebound benefits and SMC on a statutory basis is not warranted. Furthermore, the evidence does not indicate that the Veteran is "permanently housebound" as a result of his service-connected disability on a factual basis. As discussed, the Veteran's service-connected disability hypertension, did not interfere with his ability to travel outside his home. He was able to leave the house or immediate premises approximately twice per week. Further, the Veteran's inability to leave the home more than twice per week was not noted to be the result of his service-connected hypertension. As noted above, the treatment notes of record tend to show that the Veteran's hypertension was well-controlled, Therefore, SMC is also not warranted on that basis. The Board has also considered the lay evidence of record. The Veteran and the appellant are competent to describe what he and she personally observed or experienced. However, the weight of the medical evidence simply does not indicate that the Veteran required the regular aid and assistance of another person, or was housebound as a result of his service-connected disability. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to SMC based on the need for the regular aid and attendance of another person or by reason of being housebound is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Ivan Franklin 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.