dwbell99

Claim history: 01/19/2016, submitted claim for "Veterans lower bilateral knee pain and musculoskeletal injuries are MORE LIKELY THAN NOT >50% SERVICE CONNECTED". 11/29/2016, Rating Decision listed: Explanation: Service connection for right knee degenerative osteoarthritis is denied since this condition neither occurred in nor was caused by service. 10/18/2017, submitted claim which corrected the 01/19/2016 service connection with secondary service connection (which VA made an appeal to 01/19/2016 claim) for "Veteran lower bilateral knee strain and painful range of motion are MORE LIKELY THAN NOT > 50% secondary service connected (due to abnormal gait caused by service connected left ankle disability". 03/26/2018, Rating Decision listed: DECISION The previous denial of service connection for left knee degenerative osteoarthritis is confirmed and continued.

If a statement in the DECISION section of a Rating Decision lists "service connection", does this also cover a "secondary service connection"? If so, where is this addressed in the VA regulations?

I am looking at using Citations as follows: VA examiner's undocumented statement that "In order for the ankle pain to have contributed to the development of the lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease, Degenerative Joint Disease, stenosis, neuropathy/radiculopathy 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 of the following: 1. “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”, as stated in 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 Dr SB, dated 10/18/2017 contradicts the VA examiner's rationale as follows: 2. 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. 3. Citation Nr: 1309805 Decision Date: 03/22/13 states a low back disability, diagnosed as degenerative joint disease and mechanical chronic low back pain, is proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service-connected bilateral foot and knee disabilities. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (2006); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2012). 4. 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. 5. Citation Nr: 18132287 Decision Date: 09/06/18 states service connection for a low back disability, claimed as secondary to a service-connected left ankle disability, is granted.

thanks

ie. Citation Nr: 0720781 Wondering how much 'weight' using Citation(s) as references in a Supplemental Claim or HLR

What exactly is a Citation? Is it set a precedent?

Anyone know any studies that can help support an abnormal gait claim?

where is alpha part of the alphanumeric on the denial located?

I am thinking about this in my supplemental claim. What are your thoughts? The VA medical opinion dated March 18, 2019, is more reliable as the rationale is better supported; the condition in the VA medical opinion is more accurately described as osteoarthritis, whereas the medical opinion provided by Dr. Vet lists strain and painful range of motion, which, per DBQ is not a current diagnosis. Rather, patellofemoral pain syndrome (pain in the front of the knee and around the patella, or kneecap. ... Problems with the alignment of the kneecap) and knee joint osteaoarthritis are shows as disabilities. 1. VA failed to verify that the claim was properly developed and procedurally prepared for a decision when VA failed to make sure that all issues were recognized when it failed to evaluate Veteran's claimed lower bilateral knee strain and painful range of motion was evaluated in the VA DBQ. M21-1, III.iv.5.A.1.d. Circumstances in Which to Evaluate Evidence 2. Pain is a disabiliy IAW Saunders vs Wilkie, April 3, 2018 Board legally erred as to its interpretation of the meaning of “disability” under § 1110, as pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosis of a present disease, can qualify as a disability.

also found this: 38 U.S. Code § 5107(b) Benefit of the Doubt states "The Secretary shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary".

That makes sense. I was thinking that the C&P should have evaluated all conditions not just the ones addressed in the one I submitted. Also since Pain was not recognized as a disability by itself until 2018 (DBQ from my Dr was 2017) maybe that may have had some weight in the VA's decision. Seems that the C&P just copied my Dr's DBQ then changed the claim.

VA changed "lower bilateral knee strain and painful range of motion" to "knee degenerative osteoarthritis" after they failed to diagnose "lower bilateral knee strain and painful range of motion" during the C&P. Is this legal? DECISION: 1. The previous denial of service connection for left knee degenerative osteoarthritis is confirmed and continued. 2. The previous denial of service connection for right knee degenerative osteoarthritis is confirmed and continued. REASON FOR DECISION: On October 18, 2017, Dr. Vet provides a medical opinion that your lower bilateral knee strain and painful range of motion are more likely than not secondary to the service connected left ankle due to abnormal gait. The VA medical opinion dated March 18, 2019, is more reliable as the rationale is better supported, the condition in the VA medical opinion is more accurately described as osteoarthritis, whereas the medical opinion provided by Dr Vet lists strain and painful range of motion, which, per DBQ is not a current diagnosis. Rather, patellofemoral pain syndrome and knee joint osteaoarthritis are shows as disabilities.

When adjudicating a claim for veterans benefits, "[t]he Secretary shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record." 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).

Presume that if the lay evidence was not addressed in the Rating Decision and it was ignored by the VA and assert that the VA did not consider it. Make the VA defend against this assertion. The logic for this is that a C&P examiner is credible unless challenged.

Seems the VA changed my claim from lower bilateral knee strain and painful range of motion to knee degenerative osteoarthritis. Here is a short summary of what happened. Claimed lower bilateral knee strain and painful range of motion are more likely than not > 50% secondary connected (due to abnormal gait caused by service connected left ankle disability). Reasons for Decision in Rating Decision states: that the VA medical opinion is more reliable as the rationale is better supported; the condition in the VA medical opinion is more accurately described as osteoarthritis, whereas the medical opinion provided by Veteran lists strain and painful range of motion, which, per DBQ is not a current diagnosis. Rather, patellofemoral pain syndrome and knee joint osteaoarthritis are shows as disabilities. Decision from Rating Decision lists: 1. The previous denial of service connection for left knee degenerative osteoarthritis is confirmed and continued. 2. The previous denial of service connection for right knee degenerative osteoarthritis is confirmed and continued.