Jump to content

dwbell99

Third Class Petty Officers
  • Content Count

    42
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About dwbell99

  • Rank
    E-3 Seaman

Previous Fields

  • Branch of Service
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. M21-1, I.7.1.b. Other Changes Required by MA Additional changes in the AMA included: - binding VA and Board adjudicators to findings favorable to a claimant,
  2. I ordered my c-file on Sept 9 but do not expect to get it before I file my supplemental claim next week. I did find the following information regarding favorable findings: If VA finds that the evidence is both competent and credible, then it is favorable to the veteran. Under the Legacy appeals system, such favorable findings are not binding. Namely, if the Regional Office makes a favorable finding, the Board can still decide it is not favorable upon its de novo (i.e. new look) review. However, under the new appeals system, favorable findings are binding on the rest of VA going forward. Therefore, the Board cannot reverse any favorable findings of fact the Regional Office made.
  3. If a rating decision lists in "Favorable finding identified in this decision " that "... opined that chronic L5-S1 disc degeneration & bilateral lower extremity sciatica are more likely than not less secondary connected (due to abnormal gait caused by service connected left ankle disability)", then doesn't this mean the Rating Decision awards secondary service connection? M21-1, III, iv, 2, B, 5 - Favorable Findings states: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ III.iv.2.B.5.a. Definition: Favorable Finding As stated in 38 CFR 3.104(c), a favorable finding means a conclusion either on a question of fact or on an application of law to facts made by an adjudicator concerning the issue(s) under review. Reference: For more information on findings of fact and conclusions of law, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 5.A.1.c. 38 CFR § 3.104 Binding nature of decisions. (a) Binding decisions. A decision of a VA rating agency is binding on all VA field offices as to conclusions based on the evidence on file at the time VA issues written notification in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 5104. A binding agency decision is not subject to revision except by the Board of Veterans' Appeals, by Federal court order, or as provided in §§ 3.105, 3.2500, and 3.2600. (b) Binding administrative determinations. Current determinations of line of duty, character of discharge, relationship, dependency, domestic relations questions, homicide, and findings of fact of death or presumptions of death made in accordance with existing instructions, and by application of the same criteria and based on the same facts, by either an Adjudication activity or an Insurance activity are binding one upon the other in the absence of clear and unmistakable error. (c) Favorable findings. Any finding favorable to the claimant made by either a VA adjudicator, as described in § 3.103(f)(4), or by the Board of Veterans' Appeals, as described in § 20.801(a) of this chapter, is binding on all subsequent agency of original jurisdiction and Board of Veterans' Appeals adjudicators, unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding. For purposes of this section, a finding means a conclusion either on a question of fact or on an application of law to facts made by an adjudicator concerning the issue(s) under review. [29 FR 1462, Jan. 29, 1964, as amended at 29 FR 7547, June 12, 1964; 56 FR 65846, Dec. 19, 1991; 66 FR 21874, May 2, 2001; 84 FR 167, Jan. 18, 2019] M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 5.A.1.c Definitions: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Findings of fact are the true facts that a decision maker finds to exist after the analysis of all evidence of record. Findings of fact are necessary to making the conclusions of law. Conclusions of law are the ultimate determinations made regarding whether key governing substantive and/or procedural legal requirements defined by the claim are proven. Every legal conclusion depends on finding certain facts.
  4. Understand but I am not asking for anyone else's case to site as supporting evidence for mine.
  5. Please only reply if you have knowledge of any supporting documentation, that I requested earlier, to support degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine (claimed as back) is as likely than not 50% secondary connected (due to abnormal gait caused by service connected left ankle disability). All others, have a blessed day but please do not post here.' thanks, dwbell99
  6. I am getting two more doctors medical opinions but also need some medical treatise to support the nexus. The VA will side with their VES doctor without supporting documentation. I understand about getting more medical opinions. I am just asking for any supporting documents.
  7. Need supporting documentation to support degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine (claimed as back) is as likely than not 50% secondary connected (due to abnormal gait caused by service connected left ankle disability). Please only reply if you have knowledge of any supporting documentation to support degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine (claimed as back) is as likely than not 50% secondary connected (due to abnormal gait caused by service connected left ankle disability). All others, have a blessed day but please do not post here.' thanks, dwbell99
  8. Check these out and let me know here if your find any more. When Lower Extremity Dysfunction Contributes to Back Pain Dr. George C Tractable DPM From Limping and Back Pain by Dr. Ian J. Harrington, B.A.Sc., P. Eng., M.D., F.R.C.S.(C), M.S., MSc. (Strath.) Orthopaedics Citation Nr: 0720781 Decision Date: 07/12/07 states that competent medical evidence establishes that the veteran's left ankle disability contributed to the development of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. Citation Nr: 1522367 Decision Date: 05/27/15 states that evidence is in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's low back, bilateral knee and left ankle disabilities have been caused by his service-connected post-traumatic arthritis of the right ankle.
  9. Looking for a reference for VA examiner opined for a medical condition that was not the one being rated.
  10. 4. VA examiner's medical opinion is entitled to zero weight since it relied on an inaccurate factual premise by (a) rating the wrong disability (sciatica instead of the Back (Thoracolumbar Spine) Conditions DBQ dated 10/18/2017 (b) rating the wrong gait (on the post L3-S1 fusion surgery instead of the pre-operation surgery), and (c) failing to provide documents supporting her rationale that "In order for the ankle pain to have contributed to the development of the lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease, Degerative Joint Disease, stenosis, neuropathy/radiculophy the gait would have to be significantly antalgic and even then it would be unlikely to cause the conditions above", and (d) failing to assign a qualified VA examiner (assigned a Pediatrician who is not qualified through education, training or experience to evaluate and providing a credible medical opinion, for chronic L5-S1 disc degeneration & bilateral lower extremity sciatica conditions. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1) Competent medical evidence (a) rating the wrong disability (sciatica instead of the Back (Thoracolumbar Spine) Conditions DBQ dated 10/18/2017 Determine what facts are required and what standard of proof applies based on the criteria for entitlement to the specific benefit sought and the procedural issue (original, new, increase, supplemental, presumption, proposed adverse action, and stabilization). 21-1,III.iv.5.A.1.f. Overview of Evaluating Evidence (b) rating the wrong gait (on the post L3-S1 fusion surgery instead of the pre-operation surgery) Determine what facts are required and what standard of proof applies based on the criteria for entitlement to the specific benefit sought and the procedural issue (original, new, increase, supplemental, presumption, proposed adverse action, and stabilization). 21-1,III.iv.5.A.1.f. Overview of Evaluating Evidence VA examiner opined that "Veteran's gait not significantly antalgic on today's exam 1/29/2018. The Gait the VA examiner is referring to on today's exam is the post-L3-S1 disk fusion and not representative of the abnormal gait that caused the back problems. Veterans pre-disk fusion abnormal gait was identified by Anil B. Desai, Chief of Compensation & Pension in his Peripheral Nerves Conditions (not including Diabetic Sensory-Motor Peripheral Neuropathy) DBQ dated 12/28/2017. 8. Gait: Is the Veteran's gait normal? [No] If no, describe abnormal gait. Mild Limp Provide etiology of abnormal gait: Likely residuals of left ankle surgery (c) failing to provide documents supporting her rationale that "In order for the ankle pain to have contributed to the development of the lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease, Degerative Joint Disease, stenosis, neuropathy/radiculophy the gait would have to be significantly antalgic and even then it would be unlikely to cause the conditions above". "a medical examiner’s opinion that is not supported with an analysis that could be considered and weighed against contrary opinions is inadequate" Stefl v. Nicholson, Mar 27, 2007, 21 Vet.App. 120 VA examiner's rationale was "Veteran injured ankle in the service in the 1970s. Veteran subsequently went on to serve until 1992. No back pain noted on exams 11/13/1978,2/28/1984, 1/13/1992. In addition, Veteran's gait not significantly antalgic on today's exam 1/29/2018. In order for the ankle pain to have contributed to the development of the lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease, Degerative Joint Disease, stenosis, neuropathy/radiculophy the gait would have to be significantly antalgic and even then it would be unlikely to cause the conditions above. Therefore, any currently diagnosed condition(s) related to the veteran's claimed bilateral lower extremity sciatica, is less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) proximately due to or the result of the veteran's left ankle osteoarthritis." VA examiner's undocumented statement that "In order for the ankle pain to have contributed to the development of the lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease, Degerative Joint Disease, stenosis, neuropathy/radiculophy the gait would have to be significantly antalgic and even then it would be unlikely to cause the conditions above" is of questionable probative value because the following: PEER REVIEW SUPPORTING THIS MEDICAL OPINION (When Lower Extremity Dysfunction Contributes To Back Pain) Dr. George C Tractable DPM listed in the REMARKS of supplemental claim for Back (Thoracolumbar Spine) Conditions DBQ, by IMO, dated 10/18/2017 contradicts the VA examiner's rationale as follows: Consider that individuals walk anywhere from 2,500 to 15,000 steps per day.1 If any one of those individuals has a biomechanical foot dysfunction, the resulting abnormal movement and function can and will alter gait, putting stress and strain on muscles, bones and joints in regions of the body remote to the foot. When this altered gait is repeated day after day, week after week and year after year, it ultimately weakens muscles and joints, causing pain, arthritis and increased susceptibility to injury. As the decades pass and podiatric biomechanics is seemingly better understood, the significant influence gait abnormalities can have on musculoskeletal symptoms and dysfunctions in the proverbial “kinetic chain,” as a result of secondary postural changes, becomes more apparent. No longer should we isolate our thinking to the pathological effects these gait abnormalities create within the foot. We also need to consider the effects of these gait dysfunctions proximal to the foot. Indeed, foot dysfunction may be the etiology or a contributing factor in many pathological conditions, including those affecting the back, hips and knees as well as other joints, bones and muscles. As a result of these postural changes, there is subsequent redistribution of ground reactive forces and the forces altered and redirected via compensations and the repetitive movements involved in gait. If a patient has a condition (i.e. a painful lower back) proximal to the foot and it is aggravated during or after walking or standing, that may be a good indicator that foot dysfunction is the cause or a contributor to the problem. If this is the case and there are obvious podiatric biomechanical dysfunctions (even in the absence of pain in the feet), one can prevent serious conditions from developing proximally in the kinetic chain. If these serious conditions are already present, the use of appropriate podiatric biomechanical treatment can help manage these conditions, alleviate pain and provide an environment to prevent further deterioration in these regions. When Lower Extremity Dysfunction Contributes To Back Pain is located at: https://www.podiatrytoday.com/when-lower-extremity-dysfunction-contributes-back-pain Citation Nr: 0720781 Decision Date: 07/12/07 States that competent medical evidence establishes that the veteran's left ankle disability contributed to the development of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. Citation Nr: 1522367 Decision Date: 05/27/15 States that evidence is in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's low back, bilateral knee and left ankle disabilities have been caused by his service-connected post-traumatic arthritis of the right ankle. VA medical examiners medical opinion is further rebutted by a medical treatises concerning workplace place and Insurance appeals for the Canadian Government. It states that limping can accelerate normal aging change and thus cause back symptoms, because each type of limp causes exaggerated bending and rotation of the trunk, it is probable that over time, this could accelerate normal aging change and thus cause back symptoms. The L.4 - 5 and L.5 - S.1 spinal segments of normal individuals have the greatest motion in the lumbar spine. Greater motion causes an increased potential for lumbo-sacral disc breakdown. The incidence of herniated disc is greater at L.4 - 5 and L.5 - S.1 than at any other lumbar disc space. From a purely biomechanical perspective, increased spinal segment motion due to repetitive and exaggerated lateral bending of the spine as a result of a significant limp, would enhance the potential for disc breakdown e.g. disc herniation and degenerative change, particularly at the L.4 - 5 and L.5 - S.1 levels. From Limping and Back Pain, Medical Discussion Paper prepared for The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal, dated March 2004 by Dr. Ian J. Harrington, B.A.Sc., P. Eng., M.D., F.R.C.S.(C), M.S., MSc. (Strath.) Orthopaedics located at http://www.wsiat.on.ca/tracITDocuments/MLODocuments/Discussions/limping.pdf NOTE: (Orthopaedics is the branch of medicine dealing with the correction of deformities of bones or muscles) (d) failing to assign a qualified VA examiner (assigned a Pediatrician who is not qualified through education, training or experience to evaluate and providing a credible medical opinion, for chronic L5-S1 disc degeneration & bilateral lower extremity sciatica conditions). 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1) Competent medical evidence Stefl v. Nicholson, Mar 27, 2007, 21 Vet.App. 120 Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, Dec 1, 2008, 22 Vet.App. 295 "Evidence from a source that is not competent to establish a fact does not have probative value on that fact." M21-1, III.iv.5.A.2.e. Determining the Probative Value of Evidence "Evidence from a source not having the requisite competency to offer a particular type of evidence has no probative value." M21-1, III.iv.5.A.1.f. Overview of Evaluating Evidence The Code of Federal Regulations requires that to be competent, a medical opinion must be “provided by a person who is qualified through education, training or experience” to offer one. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1) Competent medical evidence. Competency requires some nexus between qualification and opinion. Dep’t. of Veterans Affairs Proposed Rules, 66 FR 17834-01, 17835 (Apr. 4, 2001) (citing Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992) (stating that “opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art or trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence”), overruled on other grounds by King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). However, the VA Benefits from a presumption that it has properly chosen a person who is qualified to provide a medical opinion in a particular case. Sickels v. Shinseki, 643 F3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Even though the law presumes the VA has selected a qualified person, the presumption is rebuttable. See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining that a veteran challenging the qualifications of a VA-selected physician must set forth specific reasons why the veteran believes the expert is not qualified to give a competent opinion). Given that one part of the presumption of regularity is that the person selected by the VA is qualified by training, education, or experience in the particular field, the presumption can be overcome by showing the lack of those presumed qualifications. I hereby request that a copy of the C&P Doc’s resume, CV, list of publications, list of specialties, etc., such that his/her experience and qualifications may be examined, reviewed, questioned, and/or challenged. I specifically request that any and all information stored in VetPort – or any other system of records – that pertains to the Examiners’ credentialing as a medical professional since the Examiner’s date of first employment and/or association with the VA – be included in my C-File and specifically examined by the BVA and CAVC to determine the adequacy of the Examiner’s so-called expertise. 38 U.S.C. 7402; 38 CFR Part 46;VHA Handbook 1100.19; VA Handbook 5005, Part II, Chapter 3; VHA DIRECTIVE 2012-030. Furthermore, I object to the following aspects of the VA Examiner’s opinion: i) The lack of support in the opinion with scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, and how it relates to the conclusion being sought ii) The lack of facts, tests, or data on which to base the opinion. iii) The lack of evidence demonstrating the Examiner’s conclusion is the product of reliable principles and methods iv) The Examiner’s failure to reliably applied medical, scientific, and or forensic principles and methods to the facts of the case.
  11. *. I changed #6 from IMO to Independent Medical Opinion. *. I have requested medical opinions from my pain doctor and my back surgeon. Asked both to comment on (1) back secondary service connected to the service connected ankle, (2) ankylosis/forward flexion in my back (for rating purposes), and employabiliity due to survice connected back (after awarded back secondary to ankle). *. Researching court cases to support my 'concerns' in the Supplemental Claim. 4. VA examiner's medical opinion is of questionable probative value because she/her: (d) competency is suspect since she her medical clinical specialty is Pediatric Emergency Medicine. "Evidence from a source that is not competent to establish a fact does not have probative value on that fact." M21-1, III.iv.5.A.2.e. Determining the Probative Value of Evidence "Evidence from a source not having the requisite competency to offer a particular type of evidence has no probative value." M21-1, III.iv.5.A.1.f. Overview of Evaluating Evidence
  12. Berta, 1. How is this for a IRIS complaint? VA Rater manipulated the VA examiners medical opinion by making two changes (1) from rating "claimed bilateral lower extremity sciatica" to "claimed condition" so that it would apply to his "degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine (claimed as back)" and (2) from "is less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) proximately due to or the result of the veteran's left ankle osteoarthritis." to "is less likely that not (less than 50 percent probability due to or the result of your service connected condition.". VA Examiners medical opinion: Therefore, any currently diagnosed condition(s) related to the veteran's claimed bilateral lower extremity sciatica, is less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) proximately due to or the result of the veteran's left ankle osteoarthritis. VA Raters comments in REASON FOR DESISION in Rating Decision: On VA examination dated January 29, 2018, the examiner opined that your claimed condition is less likely that not (less than 50 percent probability due to or the result of your service connected condition. 2. Can you review the Main Points of my proposed Supplemental Claim (see attached file) Back Supplemental Claim Main Points.pdf
  13. -------------------------------------- "5. Rating Decision 11/21/2018: Service connection for back is denied. NOTE: Was the same decision as previous Rating Decision 11/29/2016 and did not address the corrected claim that back was secondary service connected to service connected ankle." I have to leave soon and don't have time to read the whole thread again- but did they list the Corrected IMO as Evidence? If not, and if they had it, that is a CUE. ( Under 38 CFR 4.6) ****** ANSWER: No, The Corrected IMO was not listed as EVIDENCE but the proof that they had it is they referred its contents in the Rating Decision of 11/21/2018 by stating what the IMO said in it. -------------------------------------- Do you have a link for the IRIS complaint? -------------------------------------- Also found this instance that the VA rater changed the VA examiners opine. The VA rater manipulated the VA examiners opine by changing it from rating "claimed bilateral lower extremity sciatica" to "claimed condition" so that it would apply to his "degenerative disc disease, lumbar spine (claimed as back)". FROM: Therefore, any currently diagnosed condition(s) related to the veteran's claimed bilateral lower extremity sciatica, is less likely than not (less than 50 percent probablility) proximately due to or the result of the veteran's left ankle osteoarthritis. TO: On VA examination dated January 29, 2018, the examiner opined that your claimed condition is less likely that not (less than 50 percecnt probability due to or the result of your service connected condition. ------------------------------- After I submit this Supplemental Claim for my back. I have another one that is due by 3/29/2010 for my knees,. It also has multiple issues. -------------------------------
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines