remand is back. DENIED still. i have 30 to provide

[paulcolrain]

this is what the judge put in remand back to AOJ:

REMAND

The severity of the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy has not been recently evaluated, and as that is the prime concern for claims in an increase in rating, a new examination is necessary. Also, outstanding records, to include any records held in federal custody, are to be obtained. Other directives are as below. 


Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

(Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Expedited handling is requested.)

1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment reports for the Veteran and associate copies with the claims file. In addition to all treatment records, vocational rehabilitation records, if present, must be obtained and associated with the claims file. In addition, contact the Social Security Administration (SSA) and determine as to if a claim for disability benefits has been filed with that agency. If SSA records do exist, obtain copies and associate them with the claims file. 

2. As the Veteran has applied for disability benefits administered by the State of California, contact the appropriate state agency and obtain any records associated with a disability determination by that agency. If no records are found to exist after an exhaustive search, so annotate the claims file. 

3. Schedule the Veteran for a comprehensive neurological examination of the bilateral lower extremities to determine the severity and, if possible, the onset date, of current bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. 

The examiner's attention is called to the following:

*The examiner should determine current neurological deficits associated with service-connected bilateral radiculopathy in the lower extremities. Impairments with respect to strength, muscle tone, and propulsion should be specifically described. 

*Range of motion testing of the lower extremities should occur, and if radiculopathy is productive of impairment, the degree to which such decrease in motion exists should be reported. 

*The Veteran is now in receipt of service-connected compensation benefits for his bilateral hips. VA clinical records, dating to 2011, note that radiculopathy AND hip disablement exist as comorbid conditions. 

*The Veteran has credibly reported pain in the hip and lower extremity regions for many years; however, there is some conflict in the record as to when radiculopathy had an onset. Specifically, a February 2011 VA clinical report listed the radiation of pain from the lower back into the lower extremities, and a later November 2011 examination report failed to diagnose radiculopathy (earlier March and October 2010 physical examinations also do not indicate the presence of radiculopathy). Nonetheless, the Veteran has credibly reported pain in the lower extremities for many years, and, to the extent possible, the degree of pain associated with radiculopathy and with service-connected hip arthritis should be described. 

*Specifically, it is noted that the claim for entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy has been deemed to originate in September 2004 (date of claim). To the extent it is medically possible, the neurologist is asked to note the Veteran's complaints of pain, in addition to the conflicting medical evidence, and offer an opinion as to whether bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy has been present since the date of claim in 2004. If not, the approximate date of onset should be expressly described. 

ALL CONCLUSIONS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY APPROPRIATE MEDICAL EXPLANATION.  THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION IN CONTEMPORANEOUS MEDICAL RECORDS IS NOT, IN ITSELF, A SUFFICIENT BASIS ON WHICH TO REST AN OPINION. 

4. Following the above-directed development, re-adjudicate the Veteran's claims for an increase and earlier effective dates. The RO's attention is called to the potential applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). If the claims remain denied, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and forward the claims to the Board for adjudication. 

The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).

This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West 2014).

 

this is what the SSOC STATES:

beneath is the link to the SSOC please click

3152

Edited April 14, 2018 by paulcolrain
something isnt right

[Buck52]

I agree with L   remember  you have expeditious treatment and can send in any new  medical evidence you can get ...in this case I'd sure go get an IMO use a specialist....if you can't afford it  let the Dr or specialist know when you win your claim you can pay up...OR if you have a credit card go that way  most Drs now days want to be paid by Insurance or credit card because most Dr and specialist do not accept cash b/c  there in a Group.

 I had an IMO & I did that to a Dr for one of my Important proposal to reduce all my benefits for requesting an Increase  but that's been  17 /18 year ago.

 

 

[paulcolrain]

Regarding the Earlier Effective Date,, the Dr in his C+P report states: the medical records support that pain in the back have been present since 2005. Then goes on to say that the onset of Radicular Symptoms is first Reported in 2011 Despite this though radicular Symptoms can have a waxing and waning course and it is possible that the other examinations prior to 2011 occurred when the symptoms where minimal and hence not reported.

Then the Dr opines that there is no objective evidence in the record that Radiculopathy was present until 2011……

But the judge clearly states that the Dr should note that lack of evidence is not to be used in the opinion…

Also there is symptoms reported of radiculopathy by me and by a nurses Documentation and testimony though im not sure why the Dr didn’t see or use this.

[paulcolrain]

3 hours ago, Buck52 said:

I agree with L   remember  you have expeditious treatment and can send in any new  medical evidence you can get ...in this case I'd sure go get an IMO use a specialist....if you can't afford it  let the Dr or specialist know when you win your claim you can pay up...OR if you have a credit card go that way  most Drs now days want to be paid by Insurance or credit card because most Dr and specialist do not accept cash b/c  there in a Group.

 I had an IMO & I did that to a Dr for one of my Important proposal to reduce all my benefits for requesting an Increase  but that's been  17 /18 year ago.

 

 

i understand and i am a very big addvicate of the imo i just as im sure many vets are frustrated with the fact that over the years its becomeing more and more apparent that we NEED A PAID FOR IMO INSTEAD OF RELYING ON VA... THIS IS NOT WHAT THE SYSTEM IS DESIGNED FOR BUT IT IS WHAT HAS BEEN THE ANSWER. ITS UNFORTUNATE AND WE ALL WISH THERE WAS SOMETHING IN OUR RECORDS THAT COULD SKIP THIS. MOST IMO'S USE WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE RECORD AND THEN JUST MAKE A DIFFERENT STATEMENT BUT THEN THE VA IS ALLOWED TO SAY THAT THIS IS NEW EVIDENCE.... POINT IS ITS NOT NEW JUST A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION REGARDING THE SAME EVIDENCE BUT THIS LEGALLY STOPS THE EED.

[Buck52]

paulcolrain

I am not familiar with your case , and if you have other claims to add to this you might want to look closer on a CUE...You just might get luckly and do a  fine tooth comb for a possible  Cue..Read this past BVA remand Case out  pay attention to what  is Inextricably  intertwined means

this case is about the VA made a error calling the veteran condition something else  in this case veteran was claiming bronchitis and the VA Error said he was claiming asthma  which the veteran  called a CUE 

read most of this case as it applies to the EED also  ...even if this case is a lot different from what you have it may give you an Ideal has to how to proceed with your case Or maybe check with your VSO/REP

Most important  fine tooth comb for a CUE in your case.

Unfortunately this case is still in remand. as this seems to be what your getting a run around about although your case maybe entirely different.

Remember The Purpose of a Remand is to ensure compliance with due process considerations. (as you probably already know)  so remands may take longer an add to the stress  but usually a remand is a good thing. jmo

I would take a wild guess and say most appeals are won with the IMO. & Yes I agree it's unfortunate for the Veteran to have to go that rout  but whatever it takes to win  and proving your case with a Private Dr that goes into more details and adds his/her credentials is usually what it takes to get through to these idiots.

https://www.va.gov/vetapp14/Files2/1414561.txt 

 

Edited April 15, 2018 by Buck52

[paulcolrain]

YOUR AWSOME BUCK..... THANK YOU AND AS I TYPE MY MIND IS GOING.... THANK YOU!!!!

AND BUCK BUT ALSO OTHERS....... YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE SEEN THIS IN THE REMAND I SAY THIS BECAUSE NO ONE MENTIONED.....AND IF ANY ONE IS FAMILIAR WITH THE ABSOLUTE LAW OF 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)

4. Following the above-directed development, re-adjudicate the Veteran's claims for 
an increase and earlier effective dates. 
The RO's attention is called to the potential applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c).
 If the claims remain denied, 
issue an appropriate supplemental
 statement of the case and forward the claims to the Board for adjudication.

Edited April 15, 2018 by paulcolrain
PUT IM

[paulcolrain]

BUCK NOW THAT I HAVE READ YOUR HYPERTEXT LINK ID LIKE TO AS A QUESTION....

IS THIS WHAT POINT YOU TRYING TO MAKE>?

 

1.  Develop and adjudicate the Veteran's claim of CUE in the April 1990, December 2002, and May 2006 rating decisions that denied service connection for asthmatic bronchitis, as alleged by the Veteran at his January 2012 hearing before the undersigned. 
 He should be afforded notice as to the definition of CUE.  In this regard, the Veteran has claimed CUE in that the RO erroneously adjudicated his claim as asthmatic bronchitis pre-existing service, when he alleges he has never been treated for, or diagnosed with,
 asthma.