Do I Still Need An Imo

[Spiderman]

Filing aorta aneurysm as secondary claim to my service connected disability valvular heart disease

US Army 1972-1975, I am currently 60% disabled with a history of service connected valvular heart disease. DX before leaving the service, (Aorta Stenosis, bicuspid aorta valve). My disability is not IHD or connected to AO, but still ;

Service Connected, Peacetime, Incurred (don’t know why the record says Peacetime)

10% from 10/16/1975

100% from 02/13/2007

60% from 09/01/2008

The aorta valve had to be replaced in 2007, In 2010 I started having some familiar symptoms, testing was done the MRI showed an aorta aneurysm 5cm x 4.6cm, 8 months later a CT with contrast, showed aorta aneurysm 4.9cm x 4.8cm. In the CFR 38 - 4.104 - 7110, an aneurysm is compensability when it reaches 5cm.

Doctor/Radiology progress report states: likely part of the spectrum of by bicuspid valve and aortopathy.

Fellow veterans have told me that this does not say what the relationship is between the aneurysm and the service connected valvular heart disease.

In a non related C&P exam, which was to be for this purpose, but the claim was wrote up wrong, the examiner did comment on the aorta aneurysm, he stated in his DIAGNOSES,(quote) “ 1. Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. 2. Aneurysm of the thoracic aorta. This is most likely related to the aortic stenosis.” IS this going to be sufficient evidence in connecting the two diseases together? Or is an IMO / Nexus Letter still going to be needed? I am having a hard time finding someone to write a nexus letter. Thanks for all of your comments regarding this issue.

Spiderman

Edited March 12, 2012 by Spiderman

[john6012]

Most likely is what the VA is looking for and I believe they would honor your claim in a positive manner. I think you have what you need. More likely than not is another term they accept. Perhaps others may join in and enlighten us in this matter...

Edited April 1, 2012 by john6012

[john999]

I think it is enough for the VA but a cheap IMO if you could get it would not hurt. It never hurts to get more evidence that states the connection in bolder type.

[Berta]

"DX before leaving the service, (Aorta Stenosis, bicuspid aorta valve."

That is the inservice diagnosis and this, in my opinion ,confirms that the aneurysm is related to the inservice aortic stenosis:

The only problem I see is if the VA gets the C & P exam results for the non related disability mixed up with this claim.Still the VA doctor documented this and you can hold them to it.

"but the claim was wrote up wrong" ... that could be problematic ....

Did you get a VCAA letter yet on the Aneurysm claim?

I consider this as a good nexus statement and I hope others chime in here too.

It is even stronger than 'as likely as not"and I cant imagine what else the VA could possibly attribute the aneurysm to.

I have used C & P results for my personal claims for more then one claim I filed so dont hesitate to use this for the aneurysm claim as well as the non related claim.

Once VA says it on paper, regardless of why, it becomes evidence.

“ 1. Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. 2. Aneurysm of the thoracic aorta. This is most likely related to the aortic stenosis.”

Edited April 2, 2012 by Berta