mos1833

what does conjectural analogiies mean, or doubtful diagnosis. whats an organic disease. §4.20 Analogous ratings. When an unlisted condition is encountered it will be permissible to rate under a closely related disease or injury in which not only the functions affected, but the anatomical localization and symptomatology are closely analogous. Conjectural analogies will be avoided, as will the use of analogous ratings for conditions of doubtful diagnosis, or for those not fully supported by clinical and laboratory findings. Nor will ratings assigned to organic diseases and injuries be assigned by analogy to conditions of functional origin. thanks

thanks 71m10 i was just thinking about the effective date, and the use of a diagnosic codes, for ratings. would this count as an effective date ? thanks

i dont understand below is confuseing to me. in 1984 i was denied sc, because my injury wasent chronic in service. but they used the diagnostic of 5299-5295 in the same decision. i think they should have at least rated me at 10% according to what i read in this law listed below.i may be wrong but thats how i read it , please comment,what do you think ? thanks §4.27 Use of diagnostic code numbers. The diagnostic code numbers appearing opposite the listed ratable disabilities are arbitrary numbers for the purpose of showing the basis of the evaluation assigned and for statistical analysis in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and as will be observed, extend from 5000 to a possible 9999. Great care will be exercised in the selection of the applicable code number and in its citation on the rating sheet. No other numbers than these listed or hereafter furnished are to be employed for rating purposes, with an exception as described in this section, as to unlisted conditions. When an unlisted disease, injury, or residual condition is encountered, requiring rating by analogy, the diagnostic code number will be “built-up” as follows: The first 2 digits will be selected from that part of the schedule most closely identifying the part, or system, of the body involved; the last 2 digits will be “99” for all unlisted conditions. This procedure will facilitate a close check of new and unlisted conditions, rated by analogy. In the selection of code numbers, injuries will generally be represented by the number assigned to the residual condition on the basis of which the rating is determined. With diseases, preference is to be given to the number assigned to the disease itself; if the rating is determined on the basis of residual conditions, the number appropriate to the residual condition will be added, preceded by a hyphen. Thus, rheumatoid (atrophic) arthritis rated as ankylosis of the lumbar spine should be coded “5002–5240.” In this way, the exact source of each rating can be easily identified. In the citation of disabilities on rating sheets, the diagnostic terminology will be that of the medical examiner, with no attempt to translate the terms into schedule nomenclature. Residuals of diseases or therapeutic procedures will not be cited without reference to the basic disease. [41 FR 11293, Mar. 18, 1976, as amended at 70 FR 75399, Dec. 20, 2005] Supplement Highlights reference: 39(1)

carlie thanks but when i click on the link it sends me to yahoo, and say the page cant be found.

where are the links to the court decesions, that use to be on the old home page, thanks

john999 is there a site that shows what forms are inclueded in a regular 201 file. i would like to compare mine to others. i think my dd214 was changed at some point, after it was issued. stuff like my real ssa number has been marked through,and a flase one inked in above it. it also says no sea duty, and i know thats wrong. ide like to compare a completed seperations form 88 to mine, i dont even know if thats possible ? or if theres a place like that on the web. any way thanks john999 and all.

If VA subsequently awards the exact same disability, and the evidence shows it was at a ratable level (at least at 10%) at time of the denial, then there is basis for a CUE claim. would this be a cue in 1984 the claim was denied , and i still dont understand the rating ?? they rated me using an hyphenated diagnostic code,,5299-5295 i think that was a mistake,i think it should have been at least sc at zero percent thanks so much berta and all others

thanks berta so ... if the r.o. makes a mistake which i feel was a cue , in the process of denieing my claim. and i file a nod , plus at the same time i file a cue for the mistake. and then they reopened the claim,but denied it at that point are you saying ? had they granted the reopened claim, then and only then they would consider the cue claim. but because they denied it, the cue claim would just sit there until the claim is granted. forgive me berta, but its all to confuseing, thanks again

heres another small mistake in 2002 i filed an appeal on my back claim. at the same time i file a cue claim on a 1985 decesion for the same injury. they they reopened my back claim,,,, but failrd to even comment on the cue. infact they have never did any thing with it. what is the correct proceedure,, i started an inquirey about 3 months ago, nothing yet what do yall think, thanks

thanks testvet it seems iam always mad as hell , and when iam mad ,i dont think straight. thats why i come to hadit, thanks all

free thanks again i have another thread going right now , its called little mistakes. this is more or less one of those little mistakes. they refer to the correct form for the exit exam. but its whats they say is on the form thats wrong. they say it shows that i had a normal spine exam, when in fact, its not even signed,and where it is supposed to indencate fitness nothing is checked. then they say that form is silent , for any disabilities there right , its nearly blank, its the form 88 i"ll try and post it, forgive my spelling , thanks

thanks again all but in my case it seems like every bit of their evidence against my claim is how the use one or two words to change the meaning of what the issue is. i have had representation from day one, v.f.w. + all the others that help with the different types of forms and they were good at their jobs. then i made it to the board then i requested my c-file it was to say the least. shocking . i got an attorney, man he was good, got a remand but not for the little mistakes,but for vcaa duty to assist. he got me two more remands over about 14 years, and even though i complained about the record, rba , the attorney said after its in the record it can be changed at the court or the board????? . he said i should open a new claim at the r.o. and thats where i;am at now, dam i;am tired , iam so confused i dont know if iam picthing or catching. go a head ace now , thanks again

i think whats below provides a good view,of why i think this was a categorical dismissal of all my lay evidence. ----- In addition, after considering the Veteran's testimony and the other statements in support of his claim, the Board notes that neither the Veteran, his family, nor a friend have the medical expertise to clinically establish that his current complaints resulted from an injury during active military duty. Despite his testimony, the service medical records are negative for a chronic low back disorder. Further, post-service medical evidence is devoid of complaints related to the Veteran's low back until a work-related injury many years after service separation. 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. Given that there was no evidence of a chronic low back disorder in service, no complaints related to the Veteran's low back for several years after discharge, and the opinions by a VA examiners-reviewers that there is no causal relationship between the Veteran's current complaints and military service, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. For all these reasons, the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is denied.

thanks free i thought i had um with the orders from the court in the remand orders,but they just skiped it again and quickly denied again, saying the complied with the orders.

thanks again all but how can you fix all the little mistakes, consider this- - the october 1971 service separation examination. they refer to does not exist. i have tried to get them to produce it,but they wont even acknowledge my complaint. ---- As to the issue of whether a chronic disability was shown in service, the Board places high probative value on the October 1971 service separation examination, which showed a normal clinical evaluation of the Veteran's spine. The Board has also considered the Veteran's statements that he was placed on light duty for the remainder of his military career but finds no supporting medical evidence indicating a low back profile. Moreover, several attempts have been made to obtain additional records to support his claim but the search for these records has proved unfruitful. As such, the Board assigns greater probative value to the showing of a "normal" back examination at the time of service separation.

this is the reply from nprc, no way was this a new request 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.

on remand from the court, they just re-summited the same request for ptsd records which they knew was a different claim, and the court even made it part of the remand. ----- In its March 2010 remand, the Board noted that the January 2010 Joint Motion stated that because the Veteran had reported 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 observed 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). this was after me telling them, that this was not a claim for ptsd and they still requested the same records i think is failed it duty to assist. ???? It noted that on the basis of the request presented, the NPRC concluded that the records either did not exist, the NPRC did not have them, or that further efforts to locate them at the NPRC would be futile. The Board stated that nevertheless, the Joint Motion, which had been approved by the Court, instructed the Board to remand the case for the purpose of obtaining the Veteran's service personnel records.

thanks to you all here; is some more of why i cant win. below was in the 2009 denial The Board has also considered the statements and sworn testimony of the Veteran and his sister and the statements of his family and a service buddy. Specifically, in an August 2001 personal hearing, he testified that he injured his back during service and continued to have problems since discharge. He noted that he was treated for back pain in July 1970 and was placed on light duty for the remainder of his military service. His sister reflected that she talked with him or his wife by telephone after he was discharged and knew he was having problems with his back. He acknowledged that he did not seek any treatment for low back pain after service separation but used pain pills and alcohol for pain management. Further, the Board has reviewed statements from his wife and mother-in-law submitted in the late 1980s to the effect that the Veteran hurt his lower back in service and continued to have pain. More recently, a service buddy indicated that the Veteran injured his back during active duty and had experienced pain since. After considering the Veteran's testimony and the other statements in support of his claim, the Board notes that neither the Veteran, his family, nor a friend have the medical expertise to clinically establish that his current complaints resulted from an injury during active military duty. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992). Despite his testimony, the service medical records are negative for a chronic low back disorder. Further, post- service medical evidence is devoid of complaints related to the Veteran's low back until a work-related injury several years after service separation. 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 and January 2009 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.

BERTA, THE CUE WAS ON A 1985 DECESION , THE ORIGANAL CLAIM.AT THE RO IN SALT LAKE. I JUST MEET WITH THE VA, AND STARTED AN INQUIRY,I ASK THEM TO RESPOND THROUGH THE MAIL, SO I GUESS ITS WAITING TIME NOW. THANKS AGAIN

JOHN999, BERTA, THANKS AS I SAID , WE FILED THE APPEAL AND THE CUE AT THE SAME TIME.AT THE BOARD 95-42 640 WHEN I ASK MY LAWER WHAT WAS HAPPENING, HE SAID THEY HAD TO MAKE A DECESION ON THE APPEAL FIRST,AND THE THEYED WORK THE CUE CLAIM. THE APPEAL GOT REMANDED,BUT THE SECURTY APPEALED THAT DECESION TO REMAND. AND THAT TOOK IT TO THE NEXT COURT HIGHER 02-2299 , THAT COURT SENT IT BACK, ITS VERY CONFUSING AT THAT POINT, IT WENT BACK TO THAT COURT IN 2009 , 09-2069,AND AGAIN IN 2011, 11-2847 WHERE THEY FINELY DENIED THE CLAIM, AND THEN IT WAS CLOSED.MY LAWER SAID I SHOULD TRY TO RE-OPEN IT AT REGIONAL, WHEN I ASK ABOUT THE CUE CLAIM HE SAID FILE AN INQURIE, BY THAT TIME HED ALREADY GIVE UP ON MY CLAIM,AND WAS WASHING HIS HANDS WITH ME,THERES A LOT MORE I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT,BUT FOR NOW IAM JUST DEALING WITH THE CUE CLAIM, AND IF ITS BEEN DECIDED I DONT SEE IT ANY WHERE,AND I DO HAVE ALL MY FILE. SO THINKS ALL

ok, john999 just a little more in put please. i did what you suggested and meet with the va. i ask why my cue has not been decieded yet. what a rude bunch'' of a-holes'' any way the lady looked on the computer and said ,you dont have any claims,we have denied your claim and it is closed, which is correct. so i said i know that and i plan to re-open that one, but i want to find out about my cue claim, she got all pissy, and said she didnt see one listed,so i showed her a copy of it, well shes called her boss , and they chated for a while and then she handed me the phone. he said sir' if in fact this claim is showen in your file , it was also denied with the others. i said could i please start an inquireie about it , he said they cant do an inqurie on a closed case. so i said whats your name and he said jason, and i said jason start an inquireie,and handed the phone back to the lady helping me. she was steamed at me , and said we cant help you with that request,but was there any thing else,i gathered up my files and headed out the door, so there was no help , and i still dont know what to do....thanks

john999 the court of appeals, the one right before the federal circut. i would like to file another c.u.e. because they have never ruled on the first one. thanks

bump

i got denied in march at the court,which means i cant appeal that claim any more,is that right ? i told the va i want to re-file the same claim. so they sent me the forms for a fully developed claim. my questions are. what should i send them,they should have it all.if i get another imo that would be new and materal which is need to re-open. i stay confused so please bear with me, the claim the denied was full of mistakes, but after the court denies a claim you only option is to open a new claim--is that right ? if i file the fully developed claim can i ask them to review whats already been filed, i just dont understand, i am trying to get a good vso, so this info is just for me. thanks

#1cavtrooper thanks i had the ( others ) highlighted,i think its working now so thanks again.