mos1833

thanks wm36

can some one tell me if the bva claim decesion site up or down. or have they made changes,i cant find my claim any where there. thanks

thanks hoppy you are so right. ived been stuck in the middle from day one. i cant belive all the different ways they can delay the process.

berta, thanks so much the doctor that gave my opinion is a va doctor. i eaw him for more than two years. when i filed this claim he was all i could afford,free the va awarded me a pension,useing his opinion ,so did ssa. hes the head of his department. hadits the best. thanks

thanks again all berta YES this is the same claim---95-42 640 at the board. its now at the court again ---11-2847 i have a lawyer working my case. i got ssa useing va medical records,which included the only imo i have. the ssa used his opinion as controlling. the va said it was speculation. like i said before,i do have 5 lay witness statements. i get confused trying to explain things,so if iam not clear about something please bare with me. the last c&p exam was a joke,she was rude and didnt care what i had to say. they sent my claim to her for an opinion on any inconsistencys so she just revuied the other (head hunters reports) AND GAVE THE OPINION BELOW. I THINK THIS WAS PURE speculation on her part,and made a slander opinion toward me and my doctor. The examiner indicated that the only inconsistency in the above-cited statements was in the undated statement that the inservice back trauma may have contributed to or accelerated advancement of degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, which she stated was an ambiguous statement at best made by a provider who it appeared may have had a personal professional relationship with the Veteran

thanks for the help all what i posted below is in the boards reasons and bases. the board said the mer lay testamony has no value. then i posted what was decided in buchanan v nicholson. i gave testamony along with four others who new me before and after service. the board sain with out medtcal knowledge or otherwise qualified , none of us were credibal witnesses. to me that is categorical dismissing lay assertions. (davidson )

teac thanks for the reply first you are right ,that the court has held for years that a lay wintness must be medical quailifed to offer an opinion. from what ive the court changed that when it decided ( davidson ) In Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that " the Board cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence." It necessarily follows that a medical examination that fails to take into account relevant lay assertions is of little probative value. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 23, 39 (2007) (finding that a medical examination was inadequate where the examiner "impermissibly ignored the appellant's lay assertions that he had sustained a back injury during service")

below is what i think is a true injustic this claim is back at the court again after being denied using this as evidence against my claim, i keep asking my self (can they do this) from what i know and read about lay evidence, this is just wrong,the medical opinions never considered the lay evidence either. what do you think ? The mere contentions of the Veteran, no matter how well-meaning, without supporting medical evidence that would etiologically relate his current complaints with an event or incurrence while in service, are not of sufficient probative value to rebut the February 2002, January 2009, and July 2010 medical opinions. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995); Lathan v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 359 (1995); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 144 (1994); King v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 19 (1993). In this case, there is no evidence that the Veteran, his family, or friend have any medical expertise, or are otherwise qualified to render a medical opinion. Consequently, his statements and the statements of his family and a friend, without some form of objective medical corroboration, are not deemed to be of significant probative value.

hello "whats a worst-case sonario" well in my case having the board decide your claim five times {5) useing a certain docket number. and also decide another veterans claim using the same docket number three times {3} i assume the claims file was used ? i told the va there was a problem.and they even point it out in one of his claims. i know some of my records are missing.and ever thing is all messed up. like i said they know it. but they say its just a harmless mistake. i have a copy of my c-file and i dont see any of his records in it. but i wonder if some of mine is in his ? crazy hu thanks

maurace your military service will add points for ssa benefits

harv.thanks iam useing windows and when i click on new content it shows a list but the sidebar is not complete it only shows single letters not words. so i dont know whats in that post.ive been reading t-birds help links but it still not clear to me whats going on.iam a little back-woods so it may take me a while. thanks

t-bird the link you posred does no work for me . when i go to that page and click a help topic nothing happens.

hello. i use windows xp.all the new features seem to be hidden. when i go to the new contents the side bar just has a row of letters.and i cant even see what the post is about til i click it.is there a way to trouble-shoot ? thanks

i told the va that they are requesting the wrong information,the court has told them two times in remand orders to ask for the correct records, and now they do this, is this just lack of communication, or a deliberate delay.ive already got on the docket at the court again,my lawer says he thinks we can get another remand. below is what they did== it just aint right In conjunction with the March 2010 remand, NPRC, in April 2010, again forwarded the results of the April 2006 prior search conducted which indicated that NPRC had conducted an extensive and thorough search of the records among their holdings. It noted that it was unable to locate the records identified in the request (personnel file). NPRC concluded that the records either did not exist or the records were not located at NPRC.

i drew a pension , but it ended when i got ssdi benifits

berta, thanks ,in the remand it clearly states to make a new request for my personnel records,they didnt. in 1979 the diagnosis was-acute traumatice lumbosacral strain, ever thing else was secondary. in the next opinion the examiners rational for his opinion was [ it would have been difficult to work as a fencer if i had been in significant low back pain ]how does he know how much pain i can take and still do my job ? he never tested my pain threshold,and yes i did suffer for years while working. oh; crap iam starting to rant. thank folks

hi again nsa-saigon-et, thanks for your reply-but thats not my claim. berta thanks to you too. the point i am trying to make is [ this is not a ptsd claim ] and i dont need to prove a stressor, why woluld i need them , ptsd is an old claim they screwed-up so bad that i just droped it. i need my morning reports,to show i was on lite duty,just before i was discharged. the joint remand orders didnt mention them getting any records to prove a stressor,but still they just made a copy and paste effort. berta in your 23rd nov-2010 reply post in this thread,you said [ the bva's wording was curious ]why cant they get any thing right ? i think its clear that i dont need proof of a stressor REMAND In part, the Joint Motion stated that because the Veteran had stated that following two inservice back injuries he had been placed on light duty for the remainder of his career during service, the Veteran's service personnel records should have been obtained prior to the Board's having adjudicated the claim on the merits. In this regard, the Board notes that following a March 2006 request, the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC) stated that it had conducted an extensive and thorough search for its records and was unable to locate the records requested (i.e., the Veteran's service personnel records in conjunction with a claim for service connection for PTSD). On the basis of the request presented, the NPRC concluded that the records either do not exist, the NPRC did not have them, or that further efforts to locate them at the NPRC would be futile.

hi all this is just an update on my claim. it also shows the board or the ro cant read orders from the court. the orders were to make a new request for my personnel records. instead they just did a copy and paste. which was wrong to begain with. ide like to see the actual request--or can i . the board just posteded their decesion in 2011,at their site docket no. 95-42 640 below is what they did. in 2006 they requested records for a ptsd claim not for the records related to my back injury. In conjunction with the March 2010 remand, NPRC, in April 2010, again forwarded the results of the April 2006 prior search conducted which indicated that NPRC had conducted an extensive and thorough search of the records among their holdings. It noted that it was unable to locate the records identified in the request (personnel file). NPRC concluded that the records either did not exist or the records were not located at NPRC.

thanks pete53 i saw that information while searching the web. it said to use ctrl + f11 , but nothing happened in my case. i use windows xp,its funny i can read all the years on the bva site. but 2011 claims are just to wide.i have to scroll from left to right to read them.thanks

hi when i try reading the boards decesions for 2011 the results are to wide for my screen. i have to scroll across the screen to read it. whats wrong ? its o.k. in all years except 2011, help please

i noticed a few threads about c/p exams,and what should be review.in my case the reviewed material seemed to be a chance to seal the deal to denie. to me i lost years of progress reports and treatment material in my claims file,because of my claiming service connection. below is what iam up against----did they review the material or just rule against it due to me saying i have had pain since seperation,( lay ) hears a slap in the face The Board has also considered multiple outpatient treatment records showing on-going treatment for low back pain since the late 1990s. While the veteran related his pain to an in- service injury, the Board is not obligated to accept the veteran's recitation of the facts. See Godfrey v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 113 (1995). While recognizing that the veteran has been diagnosed with a current low back disorder, the Board places less probative weight on this evidence as the issue of a causal relationship between his symptoms and current diagnosis were either not addressed or appeared to be based wholly upon statements of past medical history provided by the veteran. The Board, however, is not bound to accept such statements simply because treating medical providers have done so. Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614 (1992); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, reconsideration denied, 1 Vet. App. 406 (1991).

thanks carlie but i dont understand, is this used for all service personal to decide a mos, (is it in everbodys records ) or should i say what triggers its use,

iceturkee. i was wondering if you ever filed for a back disorder ? if so . how did they rate it ?

hi to my knowledge he has to be diagnosed with that now.you said the surgery fixed him.hes gona need some kinda of connection,or a nexus to service.

thanks john999 when i started boot camp they changed my medical records,to indicate that the examiner changed medical profile to ( pulhes )and i didnt know any thing about it til i got my smr's after they denied me in 1984 for that defect.