Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • homepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

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

Rate this question


paulcolrain

Question

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 by paulcolrain
something isnt right
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
  • HadIt.com Elder

 Paul I couldn't read all your post it only posted half of it for some reason?

 but yes more or less if this applies to you?  give you some options and Ideals, the main thing was is how they intertwine the CUE.

It is much easier to demonstrate that VA did not apply the law correctly than it is to try to show that it did not evaluate the facts correctly.

 SOURCE :'' Hill & Ponton disability Attorneys.''

Your claim maybe altogather different  but to correct a EED  I'd sure look to see if they had committed a CUE during all your claim process, if you find a CUE then that will certainly change things as for as your EED

Edited by Buck52
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • HadIt.com Elder

ok I got it

Question  your on Appeal b/c of a bogus denial and now looking for an increase and you want it to be dated back to the Feb 2011  correct? and then you run into this crap.

''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).

you have the medical records to back all these up and that should be the evidence you need  although if they send you to be reevaluated don't miss it  but hopefully they will see in your medical records what your case should warrant to your favor, if they do then they will probably drop the evaluation and say it's not necessary. or something like it  just depends on who reviews it.

this is what the SSOC STATES:''

3152''

After reading the reason for your Remand  you seem to meet the 1.2.3. ok and after they see this if the read it? just my opinion  but you should win this back to the Feb 11 2011 date, I am not sure what increase they may give you , but we never know what the VA will come up with.

This all looks ok to me to be in your favor  but don't take my word for it  Asknod and Ms Berta and broncovet. Gastone  are all top notch in figuring these things out.

Edited by Buck52
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • HadIt.com Elder

PAUL

I am not 100% sure on this but if you get a IMO Letter from a qualified Dr in your favor & submit it as new evidence and request they use it and cancel the evaluation on your condition they might consider it ??

but I am not 100% certain..I know sometimes this is all a Veteran needs is a good detail explanation on your S.C. Condition and the severity of it from a qualified Doc (specialist)  b/c it seems this is the issue at hand.

please note:

this guy won't examine you  you need another Doc for that  this guy would be to read this Dr's exam he did on you and put the IMO Letter together.

if the Dr that examines you won't go into full details.

 check out this guy.

http://www.danaise.com/nexus-imo-letters-veteran-disability/

Edited by Buck52
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

PC, somewhat convoluted, it would be much easier to comprehend if you could post Post redacted copies of your Denial, SOC, SSOC and BVA Remand as pdfs.

From what you've recently posted, I see no basis for an EED, the C & P Examiner (Medical Credentials?) backed up his negative opinion by citing the lack of earlier (Pre-10 11) symptomology presenting in any of your VMC Med Records. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Based on the last 2 paragraphs of the SSOC ( dated February 24, 2018) the VA would not grant the EED back to 2004 and they gave a full medical rationale .

I am unable to copy  and paste those paragraphs  here and had to use IE to open the 16th page of the SSOC . There is more to the SSOC but maybe not on this issue …?

Do you have a hyperlink to the BVA decision?

I would think and have probably recommended before that this  case needs an IME.

I believe SSOCs have only a 30 day deadline for response.

“ i also understand that the SSOC has a 2/24/18 date but the stamping on the front page and the mailing date was 3/28/18”

 You should make sure you clarify that when you prepare a response. I hope you might still have the envelope it came in.

Have you checked out the credentials of the doctor who did the exam in the SSOC?

Buck how were you able to post part of the remand in regular text?

I noticed this past week that my BVA links show up as long exerpts that need arrows to read.

Usually I could change that into  copying and pasting here, as text,  the specific part of the decision and then add the actual  BVA hyperlink under it.I no longer seem to get the thing I could click on to change the rendition with the arrows-into a plain text format.

Maybe it is the weather----

I wish we could read the entire BVA Remand, but I could not find it yet at the BVA.

 

 

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