Citation Nr: A26011908 Decision Date: 02/09/26 Archive Date: 02/09/26 DOCKET NO. 220511-396689 DATE: February 9, 2026 REMANDED The issue of eligibility for enrollment in the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in the U.S. Air Force from February 1975 to April 1976. T.G. is the Veteran's spouse. She submitted the underlying joint application with the Veteran and is interested in serving as the Primary Family Caregiver. 38 U.S.C. § 1720G(a); 38 C.F.R. § 71.25. In August 2021, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied eligibility for enrollment in the PCAFC. In May 2022, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) and elected the evidence submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2021 decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran, the Appellant, or the Veteran's representative with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801. However, because the Board is remanding the claim, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in its readjudication of the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). The issue of eligibility for enrollment in the PCAFC is remanded. This appeal is remanded because the medical decision on which the decision was based is legally inadequate to support the decision made. The August 2021 Centralized Eligibility and Appeals Team (CEAT) determination that the Veteran is not in need of personal care services is conclusory and unexplained. A medical opinion will be considered probative if it includes clear conclusions and supporting data with a reasoned analysis connecting the data and conclusions. A medical opinion that is factually accurate, fully articulated, and based on sound reasoning carries significant weight. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). Here, the CEAT provided no reasoning, rationale, or justification for this decision. It did not cite to any medical findings or records underpinning the decision. Simply put, the Board has no way to know how or why, to include on what medical basis, the CEAT reached this decision. This is significant because the functional assessment stated that the Veteran required partial/moderate assistance with bathing, substantial/maximal assistance with dressing and putting on and taking off footwear, and was dependent on his spouse for toileting hygiene. Therefore, the August 2021 CEAT opinion is inadequate, and remand is necessary to obtain a more detailed and thoroughly explained medical opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Obtain a medical opinion from the CEAT as to whether the Veteran: (a.) Requires personal care services each time he completes one or more of the following: 1. Dressing or undressing oneself; 2. Bathing; 3. Grooming oneself in order to keep oneself 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.) (b.) Has a need for supervision or protection based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury; or (c.) 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 medical facts and reasons underpinning every conclusion must be articulated. That is, the CEAT must (1) identify what facts and information, whether found in the record or outside the record, support the conclusion, and (2) explain how that evidence justifies each conclusion. A. J. Spector Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. E. Miller, 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.