doc25

That could be a possibility to connect the dots. While deployed, were you around burn pits on a consistent basis? https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/burnpits/registry.asp

That would be awesome. I have some choice words for the raters that have committed an injustice to my claim over the past 12 years. Sheesh.

Your anger and frustration is understandable, but turn that into righteous rage. It appears your husband is going to require a veteran's lawyer for an obvious appeal. I hired Chisholm and Chisholm law firm and I'm not going to pay anything upfront, unless my claim is granted. Hill and Ponton is another law firm that deals alot with veteran's appeals. Chris Attig law firm, as well. #1. The presumption of soundness was not properly applied to this claim. Clearly and Unmistakably the record shows he went in healthy and was discharged with a bowel problem. #2. The VBA blatantly lied that the condition was not incurred or caused by military service. #3. The C&P examiner's credentials must be challenged. Was the examiner a GI specialist? A General practice Dr? A Physician's Assistant? Nurse Practitioner? The unfavorable nexus of opinion by the examiner and the favorable nexus of opinion from his Dr. is equipoise, meaning there is a tie in the nexus of opinions. A tie must go to the veteran. You and your husband have every right to be upset, but the VA is going to fight tooth and nail. No matter how angry you are. Higher level Review might not get this claim granted at the Regional Office. It might have to end up at the BVA or even the CAVC for it to be granted. To me, this claim was denied; just to be denied out of malicious intent. That's just my point of view. I'm having a similar experience with my flat foot claim from 2007. But, I'm not going to give up on it. I suggest y'all don't give up either. There's work to be done.

I don't mean to frustrate you, but have you gone through it page by page?? It would be hard for anyone of us on here to know what's on it without looking at it. You'd have to go over it again and tell us. My CD has over 4000 pages, it includes everything used for claims purposes. This is called a C-FILE. What are you planning to claim? Steven was in the Army.

When you're well enough you can obtain a copy of the ER visit through the Medical Records/Release of Information office at that VA facility and fill out a VA Form 3288 requesting your own medical information, particularly the ER notes for that visit. va3288.pdf OR You can obtain a copy also using myhealthvet. If you don't have an account, now would be a good idea to get an account. https://www.myhealth.va.gov/mhv-portal-web

A post-discharge, direct-service connection claim for sleep apnea will get denied 100% of the time. Secondary service connection is the only way to get sleep apnea granted. Fortunately for you, rhinitis is documented in your STR (I believe what you're saying is factual). You'll need to get rhinitis service-connected first to secondary service connect Sleep Apnea.

Did they send you a cd or a paper copy of your service medical record? What branch of service were you in?

Wonderful! I believe I read you had done so in another post.

A DBQ helps, but it is not necessary if your Dr. Provides a favorable nexus stating "at least as likely as not" (equal to or greater than 50% probability)the condition claimed is due to or the direct result of the veteran's service connected Rhinitis. A rationale must also be provided.

For your appeal is it for Sleep Apnea as secondary to PTSD?

No problem. What disabilities are you SC with? There's always a secondary connection.

If you get 70% for PTSD you can apply for IU; but in your case, the SSA records will provide weight to an increase for PTSD possibly to 100%. Best wishes.

Did your Dr. just say it or did she make the diagnosis? Is it in your treatment records is what I'm asking. There's some bad news and good news. I take it you are SC for IBS? If you are, GERD is not secondary to IBS. I know I know...why the heck not? When rating conditions of the digestive system, it is important to note that a single condition can only be rated ONE time. This principle is particularly important in the digestive system, because a condition in the stomach and a condition in the large intestine can cause the same symptoms. Contrary to what you think, though, both CANNOT be rated. In this case, same symptoms, same condition. Only one rating allowed. In addition to this principle, the following codes cannot be used together (only one of them can be used at a time): 7301-7329, 7331, 7342, and 7345-7348. If you have two conditions make sure to check that they aren’t both one of these. If there are multiple conditions that have these codes, use the one that gives the highest rating. Gerd falls under code 7342 IBS is 7319 which falls under codes 7301-7329. Here's the Good News: If you have a SC condition that requires you to be on medications. GERD can be secondary to that SC condition. Those medications CAN worsen GERD. Hope this helps.

It appears you met the 50% rating criteria. 50 percent: occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to symptoms such as: Flattened affect Circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech Panic attack that occurs more than once a week Difficulty understanding complex commands Impairment of short and long term memory Impaired judgement Impaired abstract thinking Disturbances of motivation and mood Difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships

Great!

What kinda tom foolery are they doing?

Can you upload the letter? Omit personal identifying information. "Material" wording has been replaced with "Relevant". It used to be "new and material". Now it is "new and relevant". I know it's confusing. But, we gotta adapt and overcome. The letter aka Nexus of opinion must state one of these phrases, plus a medical rationale: 1.“is due to” (100% sure) 2.“more likely than not” (greater than 50%) 3.“at least as likely as not” (equal to or greater than 50%) 4.“not at least as likely as not” (less than 50%) 5.“is not due to” (0%) " The first three are favorable. All you really need is #3 for a favorable decision. #4 and #5 are not favorable, which you don't want.

Will do.

Yea, I won't argue with the VA that bunions are congenital, but my flat feet are not. Both my parents had normal arches. Bunions are on my mom's side. This last denial letter does mention that my lay evidence was incompetent. Just my luck. ha ha. I wasn't self diagnosing in my statement in support of the claim; I was already diagnosed in-service, and the lay evidence my wife wrote was her objective view of my symptoms from when we she first knew me to the present.

The handwriting is hallux valgus aka bunions. That does run in my family. That's probably where the congenital bs diagnosis is coming from. But hallux valgus is a totally different disability that I never complained about.

1). No nothing else documented in the entrance exam. 2.) Correct. 3.) Equinus means tight achillies tendons. No mention of congenital. I was prescribed arch supports and yes I went. I even used the damn things for 5 years until there was just the heel and arch molding. All the padding had worn away. 4.) I did complain of foot pain in 2006. There was no injury whatsoever to my feet. A navy podiatrist made the diagnosis pes plano valgus. 5.) Same as above. The knee was SC 10%. The issue is my feet since 2006 to the present. 6.) For an exit C&P exam, is a Benefits Disability claim on Discharge. From my understanding, the examiner doesn't need a rationale. Basically, can diagnose what they want. I could be wrong. I'll follow up with the guidelines. 7.) That's why I'm still pushing for SC for flat feet. I strongly believe it was an injustice done to my claim. VBA ust saying that I had congenital flat feet without clear and unmistakeable evidence prior to entering service is wrong and unlawful. Otherwise, I'd leave the claim alone. But, the VBA is making up stories that medically are not true. 8.) No such congenital or developmental evidence ever existed at anytime during my childhood or adolescence. 9.) Hmmm...so the VBA continues to make up their own rules. Wonderful. 10.) I had submitted claims for other disabilities in 2016. Flat feet was not one of them because I didn't know I could reopen a finalized decision. I reopened the Flat feet claim in April 2017 and was denied July 2017. I appealed and submitted a NOD. I was provided the SOC. The problem was that I naively believed that my VA podiatrist would help me out by writing a nexus of opinion. I requested it numerous times and never got. I wasn't able to submit my I9 Form, after a year the appeal was closed. 11.) VA podiatrist made the same diagnosis as the Navy podiatrist did in 2006. How can two experts in their specialty make the same diagnosis 10 years apart without ever consulting with one another? See the 9-17-16 note below. I had been treated for a year and did physical therapy. PPV= Pes Planus Valgus (Flat Feet). 12.) Strange how one word can change things. Ha ha. 13.) I don't even know what a 5103 is. Flub my luck. Chadburn Note9-17-16.pdf

Yea for some reason my Adobe misaligned it. I will post everything I have with the exception of the 3rd c&p results. I had to request that from the intake center. EntranceExam98.pdf In-serviceDxpg1.pdf In-service Dxpg2.pdf C&P 2007pg2_Redacted.pdf C&P 2007pg3_Redacted.pdf C&P 2007pg4_Redacted.pdf 2007DenialLetter1_Redacted.pdf 2007DenialLetter2_Redacted.pdf 2007DenialLetter3_Redacted.pdf 2017DenialLetter1.pdf 2017DenialLetter2.pdf Denial Letter 4-18-19.pdf Denial Letter 4-18-19p2.pdf

Yea for some reason my Adobe misaligned it. I will post everything I have with the exception of the 3rd c&p results. I had to request that from the intake center.

Would this be an inadequate nexus of opinion? The examiner clearly marked that it "at least as likely as not" incurred in service, but in the rationale just concurred with a previous C&P exam rationale. Full 2nd C&P exam Nexus_Redacted.pdf

I finally received my C-file back in February 2019 and the C&P results for 2017 are inconsistent. The examiner marked that my flat feet were "at least as likely as not" due to military service, but in the rationale the examiner agrees with the previous C&P from 2007. Full 2nd C&P exam Nexus_Redacted.pdf