paulcolrain

find a bilateral factor calculator for va and put your info in . seems strange that they haven't rounded up. i count 170% this all should be at least 96% so then hence 100%

when you read these hope in order. think just of the right hip. note to yourself that i have never before service been diagnosed with any issues of my right hip....

Wilson v. Derwinski (1991) (#90-673) ??? ask_nod, do you think that the bva still looks at this or does walker over ride this ? like, ok veteran shows symptoms wich are still important see Wilson v. Derwinski but to gain service connection through symptomology the claimant needs to have a chronic disease in the list,,,??? so frustrating because the more the veterans learn to be clear and persuasive about their arguments it seems to me the VA gets even more vague with how to get an award. just like When the veteran believes they have submitted new and material evidence but the RO says though they have never seen it and yes its is new and material ,,, it still doesnt change our mind. that line they use is incredible because the the law is clear,, all it has to do is go towards the point the veteran is trying to claim and it needs to be new so that the claim in its entirety is reviewed. anyway i dont want to get off point im just airing some thoughts on how the va confuses us about what we need and how they like to say we are confusing them.

again we see some changes that cost money but, do these changes actually help the veterans claims to be processed quicker and more accurate ??? just like the new way we get our c-files. now they have demoted people at the ro that used to get my cfile to me within 3 weeks now is taking longer than 6 weeks at this new national place.... fixing things that dont need fixing and doing nothing that will make the veterans claims more accurately done.

yes,,, im looking for points of view also any criticism good or bad. it wiil help strengthen my claim in the long run. i can see that i need to pay for a new imo/ime because my claim is strong just not strong enough as i once thought and if the imo/ime shows it my way then that will make a big effect to the vba. as far as your point here in my copy quote,,,i like the point here,,, going years without pain and living an active life then joining the army and being discharged because of the issues and since having these pain issues......ill keep that as a key aspect...

i posted the way the bva sees walker so that i can share my thoughts on the fact i have continuity of symptoms but for what i reade the bva and the va doesnt care unless the issue is listed in the list of chronic diseases. this is a horrible situation for vets. its like , if the vet had a back spasm in service and actually blew out a vertibrea but in service doc gave them asprin and profiled bed rest but no mri was done..( in service non wil ever be done ) then if it states that later 5 years veteran gets problems without arthritis showing on his xray he will be denied for chronicit but maybe he can still get direct anyway it would simply because pain in back isnt said as a chronic disease listed///// my personal non legal view is because of veterans getting ex-poser to herbiceds then created this walker case to shut down the claims.... ,, Who came up with this list and how did it became the only legal list ?????? to me thats a great question the SCOUSA should take on... just on merit to make sure the list creator wasnt bias.

thank you ASK_NOD . this is why im airing out my thoughts so that i can get the criticism. it will help me a lot im sure.

my question is ,,,if a pre-existing condition that never required medication to treat pain but in service was a use of treatment then in service this medication was increased and has since service, wouldnt this be an increase of severity ? before service no pain and no need of meds during service a treatment was decided as medication and after service this medication was increased..??????

this is a great article for me i think it shows nexus plus it backs up my primary care doctor saying activity as a solider contributed......... Epidemiology of injuries associated with physical training among young men in the army. JONES, BRUCE H.; COWAN, DAVID N.; TOMLISON, J. PITT; ROBINSON, JOHN R.; POLLY, DAVID W.; FRYKMAN, PETER N. Abstract JONES, B. H., D. N. COWAN, J. P. TOMLINSON, J. R. ROBINSON, D. W. POLLY, and P. N. FRYKMAN. Epidemiology of injuries associated with physical training among young men in the army. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 197-203, 1993. It is widely acknowledged that musculoskeletal injuries occur as a result of vigorous physical activity and exercise, but little quantitative documentation exists on the incidence of or risk factors for these injuries. This study was conducted to assess the incidence, types, and risk factors for training-related injuries among young men undergoing Army infantry basic training. Prior to training we evaluated 303 men (median age 19 yr), utilizing questionnaires and measurements of physical fitness. Subjects were followed over 12 wk of training. Physical training was documented on a daily basis, and injuries were ascertained by review of medical records for every trainee. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses of the data. Cumulative incidence of subjects with one or more lower extremity training related injury was 37% (80% of all injuries). The most common injuries were muscle strains, sprains, and overuse knee conditions. A number of risk factors were identified, including: older age, smoking, previous injury (sprained ankles), low levels of previous occupational and physical activity, low frequency of running before entry into the Army, flexibility (both high and low), low physical fitness on entry, and unit training (high running mileage). ©1993The American College of Sports Medicine

i have a new fear.. though i believe that physical training in service is what created the injury. the muscles the ligaments in my hips got injured because of numuris non- specific traumas to my hips/ i was always relying on continuity of symptomology. 1)inservice diagnose 2) post service diagnose. now with this walker the bva is deciding this : If there is no evidence of a chronic condition during service or an applicable presumptive period, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service may serve as an alternative method of establishing a service connection claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (2014). Continuity of symptomatology may be established if a claimant can demonstrate (1) that a condition was noted during service; (2) evidence of post- service continuity of the same symptomatology and (3) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the post-service symptomatology. Evidence of a chronic condition must be medical, unless it relates to a condition to which lay observation is competent. If service connection is established by continuity of symptomatology, there must be medical evidence that relates a current condition to that symptomatology. Continuity of symptomatology applies only to those conditions explicitly recognized as chronic. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) (2014); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

i can see already that im having a problem with mapping out this issues and points. could someone please ask me about the first step of mapping in the way of a question as if you are the va and im the applicant . like. what part comes first in showing the dot to dot process... lets role play: im applying for bilateral hip stain. so what do i need to show that i should be service connected for hip strain ?

also about dr. letter.... well at least his opinion is based on something in my record.... the C+P doctor just states that he couldn't find a high impact injury in my records. so, one doc say's yes because of records he sees and the other doc say"s no because of records he doesnt see.

i can understand and see that the Dr. letter might not be acceptable but i would like to point out that his ration is that multiple non specific traumas to the hips and back in service. this is his medical opinion as he points to his prior note. also he is my primary care Dr. at the va the only hospital i use and as many of us are aware ,,, they all have to be in on the specific tests that are scheduled so not to produce to much use of facilities. my point is he is very well documented as the one who knows my care and all my issues. in the child hood dr note he states that he treated me as an infant for this disease and treated me in 1999 for only a knee issue. goes on to say that he has not evaluated me since childhood for the disease but, va wrote it as my Dr/ stated that he treated me in 1999 and at that time i had a minimum of such. anyway i dont think this is splitting hairs because,,, a superimposed injury from a disease during service at anytime is service connection no matter what time the injury occurred and if the injurys pain is brought on because of multiple non specific traumas such as running and marching have on weight bearing joints.

last ssoc..please be informed that the doctor never said in his letter that he last seen me for perthes in 1999. he actualy says i seen him as an infant and youngster. also never states that i had pain in motion or that i had a disability that should last forever...

the VA RO is resting there case on this one C+ P exam wich is the second and last exam done. please read and realize nothing is noted for med description. after reading this again i see that the doctor doesnt say who he is refering to.... like he says " a veteran" instead of Mr. ? or the veteran ?? strange now that i read this..... please note this ,, it kinda looks like a cut and paste into a document from a predetermined statement the va sent to the doctor... like if the veteran doesnt have a acute or high impact you must say this " ,,," and then he cuts and pastes... isnt that a leading description from the va that as a veteren we dont get to lead the doctor and we are not paying the doctor.. ?????????

latest Dr. letter (primary care)

im loving this question,,,,,,, running and jumping increase damage to a weakened bone,,,,,, WOW !!!!!! its giving me info

words from a letter to the va from my childhood doctor state " AS AN INFANT I TREATED HIM FOR LEGG PERTHES"............. mayo clinic says i have a great chance to have a normal recovery... but then adds if i do running or jumping ...???? hmmm

original diagnosis from C+P

also please keep in mind that the original C+P doctor diagnosed me with hip strain and lumbar strain in 2005.... but,,,, my STRs were not available...since though i still have those diagnosis from the VAMC

Thank you guys for chiming in... 1st, yes have a complete file and i have had a file sent to me 3 times in the past 4 years just to make sure they havnt lost records.so far they have only lost my sister the R.N. lay statements..lol but i keep submitting... and my poa is American Legion but im doing all the work ...... thinking about an attorney.... Free Spirit--- im gonna get some of those papers and post them in the a.m. i also really like your post on Activity Modification.... shit, i was looking for a sort of medical lay statement for nexus and this is a great point you have here !!!!!!! guys thank you , please keep checking back, i will post some docs tomorrow like soc ssoc and such so that you can check out and maybe we all can help others as well

perthes is a childhood disease. NOT A LIFE TIME DISEASE..... when the growing is done the disease is over...and if treated at a young age it can be overcome...SO it was never on my mind because it never caused pain or discomfort or anything.. kinda like having chicken pox.. at 4.... treated then done

yes, when i was 4.. treated and never had to see the doctor again and never had another issue with it.... it was never in my mind my whole life. then war broke out and i joined then all this shit came up...

yeah lol your so right..... to answer your first question,,, you have a great point, in fact my vamc doc wanted to wright a letter describing how my hips could be secondary because they are all weight bearing joints. i (because i wanted direct) said no. not sure why i did that but.... kinda just wanted the ro to eat the bullshit and give me direct not secondary. i was released from service because id be to expensive to fix and in the long run id end up with a hip replacement. i was no good to them. my pride wants them to say increase on left it happen in service and right hip is absolute in service ...

here a great question for this argument.....childhood Dr. stated that he hadnt seen me for the childhood disease in 25 years but at that time i had a slight disability. doesnt say anything about pain nor does he state he prescribed anything... in service i had a lot of pain when doing PFT and when to sick call a lot... so hence does treatment and resulting of a prescribed pain medication for the pre existing condition score for an absolute increase.