Citation Nr: A26004792 Decision Date: 01/20/26 Archive Date: 01/20/26 DOCKET NO. 220430-240779 DATE: January 20, 2026 REMANDED Eligibility for enrollment in the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The parties to the appeal are the Veteran and her sister, who was identified as the Veteran's primary caregiver. The Veteran served in the U.S. Army Reserve from April to September 2009. In the April 2022 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the December 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. However, because the Board is remanding the claims of [list claims], any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of those claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). 1. Eligibility for enrollment in the PCAFC is remanded. Remand is necessary to correct the pre-decisional error of failing to obtain an adequate opinion from the Centralized Eligibility and Appeals Team (CEAT) on eligibility to the PCAFC. The September 2021 CEAT opinion did not address the correct standard for eligibility for the PCAFC. As a general matter, a determination by VA affecting the furnishing of assistance or support under the Caregiver Program shall be considered a medical decision. 38 U.S.C. § 1720G. The issue turns on the medical judgment of VHA and the CEAT in determining whether the Veteran met the basic medical eligibility criteria under the PCAFC. However, decisions as to eligibility under a Caregiver Program have been held to be subject to Board review. See Beaudette v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 95, 105 (2021). To this end, it is within the Board's jurisdictional authority to review the adequacy of all medical opinions upon which eligibility decisions are made. See Owens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 429, 433 (1995); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614 (1992). This includes the CEAT's medical opinion upon which the instant eligibility decision was based. In the September 2021 opinion, the CEAT concluded that the medical record did not corroborate the need for in-person assistance each time the Veteran completed one or more activities of daily living or the need for supervision, protection, or instruction to maintain personal safety on a daily basis for a minimum of six months. In Veteran Warriors, Inc. v. Sec'y of Veterans Affairs, 29 F.4th 1320, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2022), the Federal Circuit invalidated the requirements in 38 C.F.R. § 71.15 that a veteran has a functional impairment that impacts the individual's ability to maintain personal safety "on a daily basis" to meet the criteria of being "in need of personal care services" as well as the regulation's combining of supervision, protection, or instruction into one criterion. Findings on eligibility for the PCAFC must employ the standard from the statute, 38 U.S.C. § 1720G, of (i) an inability to perform one or more activities of daily living, (ii) need for supervision or protection based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury, or (iii) a need for regular or extensive instruction or supervision without which the ability of the veteran to function in daily life would be seriously impaired. As the September 2021 opinion relies on the invalid regulatory standard, the Board finds that opinion inadequate. Remand is needed to correct this pre-decisional error. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Provide a medical opinion from the CEAT addressing: (a) Whether it is in the Veteran's best interest to participate in the PCAFC program; (b) Whether the Veteran requires personal care services each time he completes one or more of the following: (1.) Dressing or undressing oneself; (2.) Bathing; (3.) Grooming oneself to keep clean and presentable; (4.) Adjusting any special prosthetic or orthopedic appliance, that by reason of the particular disability, cannot be done without assistance (this does not include the adjustment of appliances that nondisabled persons would be unable to adjust without aid, such as supports, belts, lacing at the back, etc.); (5.) Toileting or attending to toileting; (6.) Feeding oneself due to loss of coordination of upper extremities, extreme weakness, inability to swallow, or the need for a non-oral means of nutrition; or (7.) Mobility (walking, going up stairs, transferring from bed to chair, etc.). (c) Whether the Veteran has a need for supervision or protection based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury; or (d) Whether the Veteran has a need for regular or extensive instruction or supervision without which the ability of the Veteran to function in daily life would be seriously impaired. In answering all questions, the CEAT must identify what facts and information support the conclusion and explain how that evidence justifies each conclusion. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Armstrong, Anna 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.