free_spirit_etc

I am not sure that C&P exams have to be totally independent and unbiased. If the VA seeks an IMO on your claim (which is different than the C&P exam) those are supposed to be independent and unbiased. But those are usually done at the BVA level if the BVA says there is conflicting medical evidence and they need to seek another opinion to decide the claim.

IMOs are what helps you prove your claim. If their doctor says the medical evidence shows it is not service connected, you need to find a doctor to refute that. If the VA relies on the doctor's interpretation of the medical evidence, then you need to give them something to work with to approve the claim.

Here is an interesting claim: http://www.va.gov/vetapp12/Files1/1206181.txt

I am SO happy for you!!! I haven't had time to get on here much this week... but have been hoping to hear good news!

I think harleyman said awhile back that the VA was going to stop sending the forms with the decision letters because they were getting too many appeals since they started sending the form. So I guess they still want to use the form, they just don't want to send it.

It is Sunday. I am waiting....hopefully...

I agree. I think they just improved it to give additional search options... such as not including results that have certain words.

"thats the main reason to get it acknowledged, SC'd. at least to me. i see you see that also. and without more testing, who's to say it isn't something else & not IBS, ya know?" I agree. I saw you had it listed as IBS/gastro -- And yes, I know that IBS in and of itself is not life-threatening per se. However, it is amazing to see things that are listed as contributing factors on death certificates. And some conditions can cause, or be a partial cause, of other conditions. I don't see any reason to not try to get SC for conditions that you think might be related to the military, on a direct or secondary basis.

That would certainly be a nice direction for the VA to move in.

I'm thinking you are the same person? That seems crazy on the lumbar and cervical. I thought it was 10% per joint or groups of joints. And lumbar and cervical certainly isn't a group... I agree to get SC conditions SCed. You never know what might be secondary to what. If you don't get the IBS SCed and then it causes something else down the road, then it would be harder to get SC for that. And yes... it can be very important to the family. In researching claims, I see quite a few spouses denied because the veteran didn't die from an SC illness -- or it didn't contribute substantially to their death. I always wonder how many of them died of illnesses that should have been SCed. But the further they push it down the road, the harder it is to go back and make the connections sometimes.

Dang! I saw some movement in here and thought maybe infantry had some good news to report. Much luck to both of you!!!! (And thanks for your support in my claim too!)

It just looks like the general form letter they send out to everyone.

Good point Berta. I was just thinking the 2003 cyst was 5 cm because that was what was said all along. I missed the part where he says the 2003 report says 5 mm. That could make a difference... So Sierra, was the 2003 cyst 5 cm or 5 mm?

now keep in mind, I knew nothing at all abt this, until the ultrasound in 2011, when the ultrasound tech noticed it. evidently even she could see something was not right, with the untrasound. now does it seem odd that the ultrasound girl, " refound it incedentally " and it then became big news, urgent , life and death situation? When they found it, it was urgent. Keep in mind that the people who found it in 2011 where most likely not the same people who missed it in 2003. So yes. those people treated it like it was urgent - and you certainly can't fault them for that. what if she had not noticed it? what red flags would have gone up, to signal my primary care doc? There wouldn't have been any red flags until you started developing symptoms. The ultrasound was for my liver, not my kidney. That is how most cancer is found. It is discovered when they are doing tests for something else. My husband's lung cancer was discovered when he get a chest x-ray as part of a screening to donate bone marrow for a child with leukemia. also what is odd is the doctors are always quick to ask, how did they find it? The doctor knows how they found it. That is in the report. they never say hmm. I see in your records they found a cyst on that kidney, in 2003. they never mention that. They probably don't mention that because they most likely don't even know that. I highly doubt they have looked back in your records eight years to make any connections. As far as they knew it was newly discovered. Since whomever found it in 2003 thought it was just a cyst, it wasn't being monitored or documented. So I highly doubt the current doctors have dug back that far in your records. almost like they are probing me to see what I know. Probing you? I didn't realize they were asking you questions about it. wait till they ask me again. I would highly advise you not to play your hand in this with the doctors right now. It might help you feel better, but I would put that urge aside for the sake of your claim. I highly doubt they have made any connection between 2003 and 2011. Again, I doubt they thought a reason to dig back that far. I would advise you NOT to give them a reason to dig back that far until you and / or your lawyer get your hands on all the records - including copies of the actual scans they did in 2003. Records have a way of disappearing. I would try to get copies of everything (just telling them I need a copy for my records) before I ever let them know that something might be amiss.

Background as follows on me Childhood abuse Childhood Molestation Abusive step-dad Alcoholic mother Did good in school Graduated High School as expected Never had any "run ins with the law" Joined Navy in 90 Graduated Data Systems school Given Top Secret Clearance after passing background, health and mental check. Traumatic event was non-combat in late 92 Shipboard fire While combating the fire I ended up in the blaze and saw my face-mask; for my respirator; begin to melt closing in on my face. Felt extreme horror that this was the end. Next thing I knew I was being stripped and doused with water, taken to triage in the hanger bay. Was told by unknown medic I was ok. I was having sleep issues sometime later. Spoke to my Operations officer about it. He said I could suck it up and move on and keep my clearance and job or seek help and lose clearance and rate (MOS). I just sucked it down no follow up medically speaking was done. Was honorably discharged. Had traumatic event when I was working as a corrections officer in 2004. Was nearly choked to death during an escape attempt. I sought help with VA about issues I was having concerning having someone touch near or around my throat area (like hugging). Managed to get to a point where I felt ok. Then in 2012 my mother (whom I was fighting with) died in a fire. When I got to the scene they (the fire department) had just wrapped up and left. That posed to be too much for me to keep everything down. I started having flash backs to the fire that nearly claimed my life. Things went downhill from there. Nightmares, confrontations with strangers, fights with wife, depression, drinking. Suicidal thoughts, Being backer acted while in treatment with VA. DX with PTSD from VA GAF avg 55 Been in treatment over a year. Hmmm -- lots of abuse in childhood. Nothing triggered in military training. Functioned fine. And then there was a FIRE. Traumatized - but sucked it up. Kept on keepin' on.... Worked in corrections after military. Was even choked almost to death. But being choked didn't seem to trigger childhood abuse, and didn't seem to affect your ability to function well in life. Kept on keepin' on from the 2004 choking incident until 2012. And then there was a FIRE. And Bam... your life fell apart. Hmmm --- seems like you have an issue with fire.... So though you might have other traumatic events in your life -- maybe they could focus on the fact that you kept on keepin' on until there was a fire. That would sure seem like a trigger to me.

This shows why it didn't grow that fast in 8 years. They have very slow growth. I know to you the growth seemed big. But it seemed to be pretty slow growth to me for an eight year passage of time. The good news is that this type of cancer doesn't metastasize easily, and has a low recurrence rate. http://www.bioportfolio.com/resources/pmarticle/480454/Cystic-renal-cell-carcinomas-do-they-grow-metastasize-or-recur.html CONCLUSION. Cystic RCCs exhibit slow indolent growth, if any, and show no significant metastatic or recurrence potential, with excellent clinical outcomes. We raise the need for revisiting current imaging protocols that may involve frequent pre-and posttreatment imaging in cystic RCCs. ​There are also three different sub-types of cystic renal cell carcinoma. RESULTS. Of 47 tumors, 27 (57.5%) were clear cell RCCs, 12 (25.5%) were multilocular RCCs, and eight (17%) were papillary cystic RCCs.

The study also said that 2 cases in their study had been misdiagnosed as simple renal cysts. It also says "It is now generally recognized that localized renal cancers are best treated by nephron-sparing surgery (partial nephrectomy). As long as the resection margin of the tumor is negative, partial nephrectomy is sufficient to avoid local recurrence. " So, the standard of care -- at least in 2013 -- it to try to preserve as much of the kidney as they can. But that might not have been the case in 2003. The study said the patients that received the kidney sparing surgeries were all after 2008. So it is possible that they used to remove the whole kidney, but now try not to unless they have to. " Partial nephrectomy began to be widely performed for renal carcinoma at our center since 2008. In the present study, most of the nine patients undergoing radical nephrectomy were admitted before 2008 and had large renal mass. The four cases receiving partial nephrectomy were admitted after 2008 and had T1 stage."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3723939/?report=classic "Cystic renal cell carcinoma (CRCC) is a special type of renal cell carcinoma. It is relatively rare and involves fluid-filled masses. The classification of cystic renal disease is based on the Bosniak classification system (Table 1) [1,2]. However, CRCC is usually misdiagnosed as a benign renal cyst due to similar clinical manifestations and imaging characteristics." "Cystic degeneration of the kidney is very common in renal lesions. About 50% of individuals aged >50 years have cystic renal disease. However, CRCC is relatively rare [3]. Accurate diagnosis and treatment are sometimes difficult because CRCC and benign renal cystic disease have similar clinical manifestations and imaging characteristics."

I think they asked the BVA to CUE themselves, hoping that would resolve it faster.

If the 30% was granted at the DRO level, how long do you have to file the Form 9? Make sure they don't run you past that date where you lose your right to continue the appeal while this is pending.

Thanks jbasser! I was just concerned because his name was crossed off the list. But I think that is because he transferred. It would be highly unlikely that they would have determined that he was the ONLY electrician that didn't need to be tested. I will check into the preventative medicine unit. That might even be on the asbestos management plans.

http://www.vba.va.gov/pubs/forms/VBA-21-0960C-9-ARE.pdf 3E. DOES THE VETERAN HAVE ANY BOWEL FUNCTIONAL IMPAIRMENT ATTRIBUTABLE TO MS? is listed right on the DBQ.

jcolwell, I am stumped on that one! It is odd that your claim went from pending with a 2014 date last week to you are being mailed a BVA decision this week. It does show something may have happened on your claim though. Someone was in there tinkering with something.... So hopefully, it is good news....

What secondary conditions did they use to grant the 100%?

Oops! http://www.qualityhealth.com/ibs-articles/ibd-ms-connection