Palma114

Congrats, outstanding, we never give-up!

Wayne TX, Dr. Anaise, IMO/Nexus are very good, and he has the medical certifications backing him! ($1500.00)

I agree, Dr. Anaise, really do a good job on his IMO/Nexus!

yes, PTSD. I have not received a decision, we just recently filed the claim for IU, we just received a copy of the C&P exam, and I was very disappointed. Because just looking it over, I can see all of the symptoms that were left off, and I truly believe, it is not going to be granted an increase.

I'm currently at 90%, my representative recommended I apply for IU, for increase in service-connected disabilities, so I did, I recently had all of my C&P exams, and of course the examiner did not put down all of the correct medical info and issues that were in my medical files that were clearly available, and could have a impact in the raters decision. As I looked over the C&P exams, I see the errors, and important medical symptoms that were left out. I informed my representative, about the C&P exam, and asked, should we get an medical opinion to correct these errors. My representative told me, the VA is not going to respond to a IMO/IME for a C&P exam that you disagree with, on an initial filed claim for IU, let's just wait and file a NOD. (and this is in the early stage of this claim) I have never heard of anything like that, I've always filed an IMO/Nexus, if the C&P examiner failed, to tell the whole truth or left out important medical issues. Because all of the medical evidence is clearly in my medical records. Has anybody else ever heard of this?

Congratulations!

I've used a VSO for most of my claims with the VA, obviously I always did all of the work and research, to get my claims approved. I'm at 90% right now. I currently have appeals in, on my OSA denial, and my Chronic kidney disease the varo approved, but the awards effective date was off by 10 yrs, that is a lot of retro, and I did not agree with the ratings. It is without a doubt time for an attorney, because if varo approves my OSA or my Kidney disease for the correct ratings and the correct awards effective date which is 10 yrs back, and would be 100% ratings 10 yrs ago. NO MATTER HOW MUCH CLEAR EVIDENCE I HAVE, NO VSO IS GOING TO GET SIX FIGURES APPROVED, AT VARO OR BVA!!!! Will contact first attorney Monday, Hill & Ponton, PA, and go from there!

I agree with you about VSO, even the very few that try, can only take you so far in your claim and appeal process and get you the benefits you deserve!

Outstanding, Congrats!

Congrats

Decision by the BVA (Docket No. 11-09 193, Feb 28, 2014) the BVA granted service connection for Obstructive sleep apnea secondary to PTSD. Another Board decision (Docket No. 11-01922, Mar 28, 2016) Obstructive sleep apnea granted service connection to PTSD.

Congrats

www.danaise.com--office (520) 219-7321

Dr. Anaise, charges $1500.00 for an IMO

www.danaise.com---office (520) 219-7321, fax (520) 844-1452

On 8/24/2016, VARO made a decision on my Chronic kidney disease claim. They granted me a 60% rating, on CKD stage 3, and Definite decrease in kidney function. I was initially at stage 4 CKD and sick, so they put me on several medications to get my numbers to come down, well after about 45 days it drop from stage 4 failure to moderate stage 3. So I initially filed my claim back in 2004, as all of this was occurring. So I just recently filed a NOD, which states I should have been granted 80%, for stage 4 CKD. So the C&P Examiner in 2015, never mentioned that I was ever at stage 4. So they only rated me on my now medical status, which is stage 3. So I got an IMO from Dr. Anaise, and he states: A BVA decision in a similar case dated October 26, 2012 states (David Jones, Appellant v. Eric K. Shinseki, Docket No. 11-2704): The court holds that the Board committed legal error by considering the effects of medication on the appellant's IBS when those effects were not explicitly contemplated by the rating criteria...As this Court has made clear, the Board's consideration of factors which are wholly outside the rating criteria provided by the regulations is error as a matter of law. "Massey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 204, 208 (1994); see also Drosky v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 251, 255 (1997) (finding legal error where the Board, "in essence, impermissibly rewrote" the regulation by considering factors wholly outside the rating criteria); Pemorio v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 625, 628 (1992) ("In using a standard that exceeded that found in the regulation, the Board committed legal error"). Conclusion After reviewing all of the veteran's medical and military records, it is my expert medical opinion that the veteran's service-connected renal dysfunction warrants an 80% rating. It is abundantly clear from the record that the veteran was diagnosed with stage IV renal failure with a creatinine of 4.5. It is true that the creatinine has improved once medication allowed for some recovery of kidney function. Yet, the rating specifically states that the veteran is entitle to 80% disability when his creatinine rises to 4.5, with no disclaimer to that statement. A higher evaluation of 80% based on renal function is not warrant unless there is: * Persistent edema and albuminuria; or, * Creatinine 4 to 8mg%; or, * BUN 40 to 80mg;

Ketchup56, it must be something wrong with their system, I have had the same display on my ebenefits, since early September!

MikeHunt, you also made a good point on, how long an appeal could take and how it is kicked back down to the RO for development, and the RO denies it again, and so on. That is true. I recently had a claim denied at the RO, and received a SOC, so I decided to get an IMO, my VSO said that's okay, let's send the IMO and any new evidence to the BVA, because the RO don't want to grant it. I had to explain to this vso, that the bva was just going to send everything right back down (remand) to the varo. In which that type back and forth adds on years. So I filed a NOD with new evidence (IMO), to let the varo make a decision, up or down. But the key is to put all of your evidence in front of varo, if its denied, but you know that it is strong, most likely bva will rule on your behalf, or the cavc.

Outstanding, and congrats. That's what its all about, don't ever give-up!!!

No its not normal for kidney disease to regress from stage 4 to stage 3. But with all of the meds vamc gave me, brought it back down to stage 3, after 35 days at stage 4. You stated I'm going to find myself in a protracted battle with the VA. There is a lot of Veterans, including myself, that believe that there is, pretty much always a protracted battle with the VA, over your claim or their C & P Exam procedures. At least you did state, that you have no real knowledge of renal procedures. Because for me, this is not just about some VARO, I feel very comfortable with my claim or case going to the BVA and CAVC, because the law is clear, Jones vs Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 56, 63 (2012). My claim is probably a little outside of your knowledge Gastone. But thank you for your opinion.

Gastone, I had a c p exam qtc, Oct 2015, and once I got a copy of the exam, I went to see this vso and explained to her they did not mention my stage 4 kidney disease I had for a period. She said she would handle it. I had kidney disease stage 1,2,3, and then it went to stage 4 in 2006, and the vamc renal clinic put me on several aggressive medications, to get it under control, it was at stage 4 for 35 days, all of this is in my vamc rec. So about 5 months later, I filed a claim. Because I was sick, and almost every week I was at the vamc renal clinic getting test ran on me. But for me, the c p examiner and the rater, have not mention that I ever had stage 4 ckd. I believe because stage 4 is a higher ratings!

Berta, this is an on going case or claim from 2006, not a re-open. In 2006, as I explained I had kidney disease stage 3, and it kept rising, and went to stage 4, so VAMC put me on several medications to try and get it under control, all of this was in 2006, so after about 35 days of the VAMC aggressive medical approach it came down to stage 3. My c p exam or the ratings decision never mentioned that I ever had stage 4 kidney disease. So I asked the vso the other day, shouldn't the c p examiner and the rater, have at least mentioned that I had stage 4 ckd, regardless of it was for 35 days. She said no, they don't have to mention that to you. (there's 4 pages in my vamc rec that shows stage 4) Yes I have researched and found a case similar to mind. I must say I was totally shock, sitting there listening to this vso, pretty much tell me that I'm wasting my time, the VARO are not going to change their decision. After that encounter, it proved to me that I need to let this vso go, immediately. Its been a rough ride with this vso for 3 yrs!

I agree Buck, I was sitting there listening to her, telling me that I could not file a NOD of disagreement on the grounds that I listed above, and I told her this is the ruling from the CAVC, she then tells me VA has a lot of laws and rulings. I was really in shock, of what she was telling me and her aggressive nature in the way she were talking to me on this matter, as if my research findings bothered her. Today I'm going to let her go, its been a difficult 3 yrs of trying to work with her.

I agree broncovet. But it is just awful, when a Veteran has to try and convince the vso, to do the right thing, when you are already battling with the varo, and then trying to convince the vso to do her job. In which I'm going to file, the NOD any way!

Thanks Vync, I am going to print it out and show it to her.