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]

This SSOC is up for grabs it looks like to me b/c of conflicting medical evidence

Re Read this SSOC very carefully

it says the date of claim is Sept 2004 however

There asking the nero to note the veterans complaints of pain to offer his opinion his bilateral lower radiculopathy has been present  since the date of claim 2004 .if not approximately date of claim (onset) should be expressly decided.

He has the evidence as to the dates he first complain of the pain  for the onset of this claim to be the date around Feb 2011 ...> onset in my opinion should be when he first complain of the pain.

so I'd sure make friends with this nero  b/c this is all riding on what he reports 

 

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).

'' just depends on who reviews it.''what the neurologist Notes  dates mostly of when he first complained!

The only thing I am not sureof is if he was denied can they go back to the on-set date if the Nero gives his/her opinion that was his on-set date?

 

 

Edited April 15, 2018 by Buck52

[paulcolrain]

so now that some have chimed in...ILL ADD SOME MORE BACK GROUND

1) first filed for SC 3 months after discharge.

2) the symptoms and complaints where in the filing but yet not diagnosed.

3) fist C+P exam Dr. acknowledges in a note the the rater that the EXAM should have a thorough neurology exam because of complained symptoms but that he couldnt find any thing so he believes that the exam wasnt needed.

4) i appealed

5) i complained about the symptoms but the C+P examiners never found anything.

6) VA LA JOLLA SAN DIEGO DR writes order for a xray then an MRI

7) once the MRI results come back then and only then was i diagnosed and the C + P Dr.s start to note the symptoms and pain.

8) this happend during the appeal.

9) i get an IMO/IME from Dr. aniese that states my degenerative disk disease began in Service.

10) i have letters from others put into record that these symptoms where there the whole time and i complained.

11) Before i was given the SC for Radiculopathy i was in a hearing with the rater (the NOD Rater) i stated and have the transcript that i have always complainded about this but that the Dr.s for some reason refuse to write it in the reports. the DRO said Back to me (recorded in the transcript) well if you have this we need to know the nerve root before we grant and i said well how can i get you the nerve root if an mri isnt done .. 

12) poof mri is done and nerve root found and now here we are with the judge asking when this started