The veteran is granted special monthly pension benefits based on being housebound, but denied such benefits for needing regular aid and attendance.
The deciding factor: The veteran meets the criteria for being considered 'permanently housebound' due to his age and disability rating, but does not require regular aid and attendance as he can manage daily activities with assistance from others or independently.
- Claimed conditions
- senile cataract of the right eye, left pseudoaphakia, floaters, bilateral age related macular degeneration, neuropathy of the right upper extremity with sensory and motor problems, bilateral ectropion, bilateral punctum stenosis and dermatochalasis
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 20, 2008
- Citation
- 0816543
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,377 · Granted: 17% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 0816543.
What this means for you
A partial grant means some issues were granted while others were denied or remanded — common in multi-issue claims. Look at which issues went which way, and how each was argued.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeal for service connection for floaters and torn eye muscles has been dismissed due to the absence of a valid AMA rating decision. The claims for bilateral hearing loss, an acquired psychiatric disorder (including PTSD), and bilateral pes planus have been remanded.
- Denied
The Board denied readjudication of the claim for service connection for a bilateral eye condition because no new and relevant evidence was submitted to reopen the claim, despite the submission of additional post-service clinical records and lay statements.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate opinions regarding the etiology and aggravation of the Veteran's bilateral eye disability, which is related to his service-connected right eye chronic pinguecula and conjunctivitis. The Veteran needs a new VA examination to determine the current nature and etiology of his bilateral eye disabilities.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral eye disorder due to unclear opinions and incomplete records. The Veteran is already service connected for left macular hole repair.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.