The Board found that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for accrued benefits due to lack of evidence showing VA carelessness, negligence or similar instance of fault.
The deciding factor: The medical evidence does not show that the Veteran incurred additional disability due to carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA.
- Claimed conditions
- Paralysis
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- April 5, 2010
- Citation
- 1012701
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 1012701.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Granted
The Veteran's PTSD symptoms have resulted in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, warranting a 70 percent rating. The TDIU claim is granted from June 30, 2018 to January 5, 2019.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities render him so helpless as to be in need of the regular aid and attendance of another person, resulting in a grant of SMC based on this need. However, higher levels of SMC are available under the law, which requires remand for further adjudication.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case for further development and medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's current spinal disabilities are related to the October 2011 surgery performed at the Houston VA medical center.
- Granted
The Board finds the evidence sufficient to show that the Appellant was in need of regular aid and attendance at the time she filed her claim for an earlier effective date for the aid and attendance award. The Veteran's VA mental health treatment records consistently indicated that the Appellant required constant care from him prior to his death.
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.