mjdt

Vike the docket number is 02-13-496 musculoskeletal disorder decisision january31,2006. This is the decision we are working on. Berta ,Thanks for your remarks.You made one of my points and we are going to keep arguing.This dr.did not back up his opinion with any medical facts.Berta you sound like our VSO.I'm glad we have him. Mary

Thanks guys, Vyke This is the only c&p exam that Jim has had concerning this issue.The BVA remanded the claim back to the AMC in order to get an opinion as to pathology and to try to discover to the extent possible the beginning of the disease. `A little background: In 1988 we had filed a claim for arthritis.It really was a dumb claim as we didn't know what we were doing and didn't use a vso.We filed the claim. He never had a C&P.THE RO then denied it because it was more then a year after discharge.We didn't know anything then about direct and secondary claims then.We didn't even know about the CFR.I'm sure the RO thought it was a frivolous claim and denied it. we didn't really file a NOD .IT was sent to the BVA and of course it was denied.We droppedit and it closed. Jim was getting help from the VA hospital He was also at 10% for shrapnel wounds.His condition was getting worse.We were learning the VA system by then.I was also learning how to use the computer for the first time and started searching the net.I found out about the CFR and how you could file claims.direct and secondary.We went to see our local VSO.He was very good and fought for Jim In 2001 we filed a claim with 2 issues.1 an increase for shrapnel wounds and 2 psoriatic arthritis secondary to the shrapnel wounds. Jim had a C&Pfor the shrapnel wounds or scars.nothing else.When jim mentioned the psoriatic arthritis the examiner said you are here for scars nothing else.Our R O denied even the claim for shrapnel .We filed an Appeal.The duty to assist law had come into existance by then and the BVA told us what they needed.but first they divided the claims into 1 increase for shrapnel wounds and 2 to see if there was new evidence to reopen the closed claim. We got a letter in 2002 stating that they were going to develop the claim themselves.Then before that happened the law was changed that they couldn't and the AMC was set up.However we had sent a lot of evidence and they had the c&p for the scars.The AMc was just starting so they farmed his claim to Huntington.They granted the increase for scars in2004 but denied reopening the old claim.WE Filed a NOD for it.It was sent back to the BVA.The BVA remanded it back to the AMC in2006 because the BVA found a progress note from a VA dr. stating psoriasis associated.with shrapnel wounds.The BVA stated.This is nexus evidence that was previously lacking. They reopened the claim and then stated,Must be remanded to get opinion etc etc.(Iam leaving a lot out in the interest of time) We got that opinon and then the AMc denied and sent the ssoc.Last thursday we went to our VSO.He wrote NoD.I think it was really professionally worded and to the point.He said he woild send it off and that we wait.He said we aren't giving up and we will win this. The BVA language really sounds good and I even think the AMC is trying to grant it.I know they have to follow the law but they do keep telling us to give them more info. That dr. just made me so mad because he didn't even address the issues the AMC asked him to address. That is why I say his comments are really the only negatives we got. WE think after it is sent back to the BVA or maybe while it is still at the AMC they will ask for another.c&p since they will have the nod that our vso wrote. I was just hoping that maybe possibly they could reverse their decision with the evidence they already have and not have to have the precise language.but I guess not and we will be in for a lot more waiting.Jim's rheumatologist at the va is on our side and I think will help.He had told us to wait to see what the c&p dr. said.He thought that he would call him.but I know he didn't.His rheumatologist is at the bigger va hospital 4 hours away and we won't be seeing him for a while. Thanks for everyones input. Mary

Hi, My hubands claim has just been denied at the appeals management center because of an opinion that the c&p dr. gave. I will explain more about his disease if anyone is interested but right now I am more interested in understanding how we can get the va to use the reasonable doubt doctrine We are claiming that Jim's musculoskeletal disorder is secondary to his sc shrapnel wounds that he got in viet Nam.He is 30 %for those wounds and still has shrapnel wounds in his body. He had surgery at the va in 1969 to remove some of the shrapnel.He was dxed with psoriasis soon afterward. We filed a claim in 1989 and it went all the way to BVA and denied. We were successful in getting it reopened in January 2006 The BVA remanded it to the AMC to get aC&p exam opinion We had filed to reopen in2001 and unfortunately he had a stroke in july of 2005. IT was reopened in 2006 after the stroke. The c&p dr exAMINED THE RIGHT LEG AND MUSCLES (Shrapnel is in left) We got summary of his opinion he made no refererence to shrapnel wounds said in his opinion not due to military.Then says the cause of psoriatic arthritis is unknown that usually people with this h ave the HBlA27 gene but this patient doesn't have it.(Jim has been tested twice at the va and he doesn't have it)Then he said my opinion is that it is caused by genetics,age and impared immune system We got the SSoc and they denied the claim and quoted this dr. and also stated that the dr. felt it was all due to the stroke.this dr also said that it could becaused by enviornmental factors. We took all this to our vso and he responded by poking holes in doctors report.etc etc. My question is this. When it is sent back to the BVA(I know they will consider reasonable doubt)and they balance the evidence.Can they grant the claim without getting a dr. who actually uses the language as likely as not. Or will we have to get a dr. to say that.One of the reasons tat the BVA`reopened it in the first place was that a va dr. in a progress note in 1989 put that the patient has associated with his sc shrapnel woundd.The BVA caugt that statement and remanded because that is all the dr. at that time said.The BVA said the claim needed more devewlement to see if they could find the origin of the diagnosis.We have responded to the ssoc by giving astatement from the 2005 merck manuel that this disease has to be triggered by an enviornmental factor such as an injury,infection toxins in the body etc. There are no negative facts on record only this that we no of. The medical record is all consistant over the years.I guess what I am hoping is that the BVA itself will just make the decision to grant based on reasonable doubt Please give any comments .Jim and I need all of the support we can get. Thanks ,Mary