The Veteran's catatonia and its residuals were not reasonably foreseeable complications of his VA treatment, leading to a grant of compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1151.
The deciding factor: The event (administration of ciprofloxacin) was not reasonably foreseeable as it is rare for catatonia to result from ciprofloxacin and VA treatment records did not document this risk being disclosed to the Veteran.
- Claimed conditions
- catatonia, increased depression, gross motor skill deficiencies, eye to hand coordination, chronic pain, heart problems, immune system compromise
- How they argued it
- Reopened with new and material evidence
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 3, 2022
- Citation
- 22000066
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,451 · Granted: 22% (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 22000066.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Dismissed
Your appeals for service connection have been dismissed due to the Veteran's death. The Board cannot issue a decision on these claims as they are no longer pending.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has granted service connection for chronic back pain as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected multiple myeloma. The appeal is being remanded for further development regarding other claimed conditions, including those potentially related to exposure at Camp Lejeune.
- Granted
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities require care or assistance from another person on a regular basis to protect him from hazards and dangers incident to his daily environment, which has been determined based on the evidence of record. As such, the claim for special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance is granted.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance for his spouse, finding that she did not meet the criteria set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.352(a) due to her ability to leave the house with assistance.
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.