The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of special monthly pension on the basis of the need for regular aid and attendance is being remanded due to procedural issues related to implicit claims and duty to assist.
The deciding factor: The Federal Circuit found that VA failed to consider whether the Veteran’s August 1993 application implicitly raised a claim for special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance, which was granted in May 2005.
- Claimed conditions
- Legal blindness
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- August 24, 2018
- Citation
- 18129431
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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 18129431.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran is found eligible for a higher-level stipend (Level 2) under the PCAFC program due to his need for constant supervision, protection, and instruction from his Primary Family Caregiver because of his poor vision and chronic hemiplegic migraines.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claims for service connection for HIV related illness and legal blindness due to a failure of the RO to comply with prior remand directives.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board finds that the Veteran is in need of personal care services for a minimum of six continuous months due to his legal blindness, COPD, and dementia. The case is remanded for an opinion on whether participation in the PCAFC program is in the best interest of the Veteran.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for service connection for memory loss is denied as there is no evidence of an in-service event or injury that led to the disability.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for lymphoma is remanded due to insufficient medical opinions regarding its etiology.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for legal blindness is remanded due to insufficient medical opinions regarding its etiology.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for gout is remanded due to insufficient medical opinions regarding its etiology.
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.