The appellant initially applied for special monthly pension based on the need for aid and attendance in October 2003, but his claim was denied multiple times due to a lack of evidence showing he required such assistance. The Board has now granted an effective date of October 9, 2003, for this benefit.
The deciding factor: The appellant's application for special monthly pension based on the need for aid and attendance was initially denied in several rating decisions from 1993 to 1998 due to a lack of evidence showing he required such assistance. The Board found that his claim should have been reconsidered, leading to an effective date of October 9, 2003.
- Claimed conditions
- Brain abscess, Cognitive deficit
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 50%
- Decision date
- September 30, 2011
- Citation
- 1137238
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 1137238.
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.
- Granted
The Veteran's entitlement to SMC in excess of the rate of 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) prior to June 29, 2020 is denied as he did not meet the criteria for regular aid and attendance due to his service-connected disabilities. However, on and after June 29, 2020, the Veteran's entitlement to SMC pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1114(r)(1) based on need for special aid and attendance is granted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that additional development is necessary to determine if the Veteran's memory loss or cognitive deficit was caused by VA treatment beginning on January 21, 2014. The AOJ must obtain an addendum medical opinion and readjudicate the claim.
- Granted
The Board has reopened the claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death due to new and material evidence. However, the claim is denied as there is no probative evidence showing that any in-service condition contributed substantially or materially to the Veteran's death.
- Dismissed
The appeal of the service connection claim for a brain abscess is dismissed.,The appeal of the increased rating claim for tinnitus is dismissed.,New and material evidence has been presented, and the claims of entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disorder are reopened.,New and material evidence has been presented, and the claims of entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C are reopened.,A rating of 40 percent for a seizure disorder is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the award of monetary benefits.,The appeal of the service connection claim for fatigue disorder is remanded.,The appeal of the service connection claim for liver disorder is remanded.,The appeal of the service connection claim for digestive disorder is remanded.,The appeal of the service connection claim for hypertension is remanded.
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.