The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of consideration of potentially favorable evidence regarding the Veteran's need for personal care services and supervision.
The deciding factor: The CEAT must consider all medical information, including the Veteran's reports about his need for caregiver assistance, in determining eligibility for PCAFC benefits.
- Claimed conditions
- Paraplegia
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 9, 2026
- Citation
- A26021095
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 A26021095.
What this means for you
A remand is not a loss. The Board sent the case back for more development — often a new exam or missing records — before making a final decision. Many remands later end in a grant, and the decision spells out exactly what the Board wanted to see.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a duty to assist error, as there is conflicting evidence indicating that the Veteran may not be in need of assistance for ADLs. The CEAT must provide a new medical determination considering all medical information of record.
- Granted
The Board has granted the Veteran's request to recognize L.L. as his child for VA benefits purposes due to permanent incapacity for self-support prior to attaining age 18, based on medical evidence showing significant physical limitations and dependency.
- Granted
The Board has granted an earlier effective date of September 13, 2006 for the award of service connection for loss of use of the bilateral lower extremities. The issue of entitlement to a higher level of SMC at the R-1 rate is remanded.
- Granted
The Veteran's additional disabilities, including encephalopathy, paraplegia, and pressure sores, were not reasonably foreseeable consequences of the laminectomy performed on a fee basis in December 2010. The claim is granted as his condition was deemed to be service-connected under Section 1151.
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.