Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

Ask Your VA   Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
  
 Read Disability Claims Articles 
 Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • homepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

100% Disability & Housebound - Aid & Attendance?

Rate this question


minerva18

Question

Hello,

I apologize if this is not the correct section for this question.  I am not a veteran.  My father is a veteran of the Marines, served in Vietnam and was also stationed at Camp Lejeune.  He was just recently awarded a 100% disability rating for Parkinson's Disease and the other associated conditions that are tied to it.  He was also granted SMC(K1).

He no longer drives, lives in an assisted living facility and in my opinion would be deemed housebound.

My question is shouldn't the VA have automatically considered him for aid and attendance SMC(S) level?  If so, should I be looking to file an appeal to his initial claim, which has been closed out, or file a new claim?

In addition, can't A&A also be considered at the SMC(L) level and if so could he be considered for that?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thank you

Edited by minerva18
additional info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Always remember. To maximize your SMC, you need to show that you need help. Or... that you have loss of use of your extremities. VA will not remunerate you twice (pyramid) for you ratings. Which brings an interesting fact to the discussion. Did you know you can get A&A awarded for two separate conditions? If you had PTSD so intense you needed the A&A of another, that would be one SMC (L). However, you could also have an A&A awarded on top of it for needing A&A for Ischemic Heart disease or DM II in the advanced stages. Getting R-1 is contingent on having two SMC ratings between L and N. Let's say you have loss of lower extremities due to Parkinson's (very common). You cannot apply for A&A based on Parkinson's. The admonition is contained in §3.350(e)(ii)-i.e. "No condition being considered twice." Conditions are defined in the Breniser decision which is a very good read. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/817365/breniser-v-shinseki/

Best of luck to all of you on your claims journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use