Citation Nr: A25035304 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 240324-427292 DATE: April 16, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC), based on the need for aid and attendance of another individual is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for syringomyelia with right upper extremity weakness in hand is remanded. INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Navy from August 1986 to August 1989, and from January 1990 to January 1997. In July 2023, the Regional Office (RO) issued a rating decision which addressed the above-noted issues. Thereafter, in March 2024, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (NOD), wherein he sought to appeal the claims in the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) System. He selected the Direct Review option; therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time the RO issued the July 2023 rating decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. However, because the Board is remanding the above-referenced claims, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the RO in the readjudication of those claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (c)(2)(ii). REASONS FOR REMAND Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.802, unless an issue on appeal can be granted in full, the Board shall remand the appeal to the agency of original jurisdiction for correction of an error on the part of the agency of original jurisdiction to satisfy its duties under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, if the error occurred prior to the date of the agency of original jurisdiction decision on appeal. The Board may remand for correction of any other error by the agency of original jurisdiction in satisfying a regulatory or statutory duty, if correction of the error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating the appellant's claim. Under certain circumstances, 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4) require VA to obtain a VA examination or medical opinion. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain an opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The failure to provide the above-noted assistance constitutes a due process violation. As noted above, the Veteran has asserted he is entitled to SMC based on the need for aid and attendance of another. In July 2023, the Veteran was afforded a VA aid and attendance examination. During that examination, the examiner acknowledged that when the Veteran experiences flare-ups of his syringomyelia, he requires assistance with a number of activities of daily living (ADLs), to include bathing, dressing, feeding, showring, brushing his teeth, preparing food, and getting around the house. However, in the July 2023 rating decision on appeal, the RO explained the examiner found the Veteran is able to attend to his ADLs on "most days," and as such, he did not require the "regular" aid and attendance of another person. "Regular" is defined as recurring, attending, or functioning at fixed, uniform, or normal intervals. See Merriam-Webster.com Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regular. However, the Board notes the July 2023 examination does not contain the word "most" one time. In fact, the examiner in no way described the frequency or duration of the Veteran's need for aid and attendance. Additionally, as noted in the July 2024 memorandum provided by his representative, the examiner did not discuss the impact the Veteran's other disabilities-such as his depressive disorder evaluated as 100 percent disabling-had upon his need for aid and attendance. The Board finds the failure to obtain an adequate VA examination constituted a pre-decisional duty to assist error. As such, this case must be remanded. The Veteran's right upper extremity syringomyelia is intrinsically intertwined with the above-referenced examination, as the information obtained may result in additional information which would aid in the evaluation of that condition. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following actions: Afford the Veteran a VA examination to assess his claim for entitlement to special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance. With respect to this examination, the examiner should solely focus on, and explain how, the Veteran's service-connected disabilities impact upon his ability to ambulate and tend to his activities of daily living. In this respect, the examiner should provide concrete examples of the Veteran's functional abilities, such as how long he can stand or sit, difficulties with grasping and manipulating objects, and distance the Veteran can ambulate. The examiner should also state whether the Veteran experiences difficulties with concentration or memory, which impair his ability to tend to his own needs. Additionally, the examiner should comment on whether the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, either singularly or in concert, are sufficient to preclude him from the performance of any of the following personal functions: bathing, feeding, dressing, attending to the wants of nature, or protecting himself from the hazards of the daily environment. Further, the examiner is asked to state the frequency (i.e. how often) and duration (i.e. for how long) the Veteran requires the aid and attendance of another person to perform any activities of daily living, such as bathing, feeding, dressing, attending to the wants of nature, or protecting himself from the hazards of the daily environment. Finally, the examiner is asked to state whether the Veteran requires personal health-care services provided on a daily basis in his home by a person who is licensed to provide such services or who provides such services under the regular supervision of a licensed health-care professional. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Fraser, Gordon 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.