dav_marine72

Yeah I know John. I appreciate the post. I know 11 years is not as long as some people wait but it's starting to weigh on me. I haven't been on here that much because I just can't stomach it anymore. Thanks man.

Well after a two year wait I receive two separate decisions today from the BVA today. The first decision was not on my layers watch but will be now. The VARO denied me for the following: Initial higher rating of more than 50% for Adjustment disorder from 2002. Initial compensable rating for hypertension on appeal since sc in 2002. Initial compensable rating for Eczema on appeal since sc in 2002. Entitlement for service connection to GERD secondary to VA meds. Entitlement to erectile dysfunction due to service connections and meds. Entitlement to special monthly compensation based on aid & attendance or housebound taken away after a temporary 100% rating for service connected back surgery. Gee guess what. It took them two years to point out my rep from the American legion had asked for a video conference hearing (I wasn't even aware of this) and since the VARO did not schedule it they are ordered to schedule it and I wait what another year or so to get my ratings. Even though the evidence of record shows all of the above should be decided my favor. Second decision on appeal since 2000!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 20% for a service connected back issue sc'd 2000. Entitlement to a rating higher than 40% since 2009. Entitlement to a neurological rating in excess of 10% since 2002 for a service connected back issue to include 2 failed surgeries, an L3-S1 fusion, 2 spinal stimulator trials, and a spinal stimulator implant at the VA in 2010. Entitlement to a compensable rating for residuals of a left 3rd metatarsal fracture of the left foot to include severe pes cavus, severe ankle equinus, arthritis and degenerative changes on xray, drop foot, tarsal tunnel syndrome, and nerve entrapment on appeal since 2000. Entitlement to a rating higher than 10% for residuals of a left 3rd metatarsal fracture of the right foot to include severe pes cavus, severe ankle equinus, arthritis and degenerative changes on xray, drop foot, tarsal tunnel syndrome, and nerve entrapment on appeal since 2000. Entitlement to a compensable rating for chronic right groin and testicle pain on appeal since 2000. This little super group was denied in 2001 by the VARO, denied in 2004 by the VARO, denied in early 2008 by the BVA, BVA decision thrown out in late 2009 by the U.S. court, and returned to the BVA late 2009. So instead of using the evidence of record which proves ratings of at least 40-60% ortho back, 40-60 % each leg for neurological, 50% for pes cavus bilateral minimum not counting everything else from the feet, and 10% for the groin pain based on three separate medical evaluations stating it should not be rated under a urological rating but a neurological / nerve rating (includes a VA doctor). All items sent back to the VARO for new exams. Instructions include telling the examiners to state whether they feel the exam can be conducted with general medical knowledge or if specific knowledge is needed. Instructions telling the examiners to state if they feel they are not qualified to give the exam (yeah right). A bunch of normal VA crap running down symptoms of higher ratings which are in the evidence of record by 10-15 different doctors (VA and Civilan). I'm waiting to hear back from my lawyer but she thinks we may go with the "develop the claim to deny the claim theory" based on the fact the BVA could have made decisions on all the above items without having a bunch of APRN general medical practitioners conduct exams on aliments for which they have no special training for. Am I pissed off? Hell yes. I don't care what anyone says to remand this shit after having my case for 2 years to me is criminal. I guess I will be waiting another year for the VARO to schedule the 7-8 exams needed and then make wrong decisions. The BS never ends!

Thanks guys. Yes John I tend yo agree with you. I guess if you think about it even though I appealed I have been TDIU for 2 years now. Maybe that the magic number LOL.

Hi Everyone, I have been TDIU since 2009 and was awarded chapter 35 benefits in a draft letter (which the VARO mistakenly gave me a copy) then they took it away in a decision dated a day later by the ratings board. I appealed this and it's due for a decision from the BVA any day. The VARO in my TDIU decision stated they would review my P&T status in September 2011 as they thought after my 2nd failed back surgery I might get better LOL. So after I received my social security award in September 2010 I wrote the VARO a letter asking that they do the review now and not wait until September 2011 mostly because of the insurance for my dependents. So as I am awaiting two different decisions from the BVA any day (ebenefits says a decision was made and is waiting to be dispatched) I receive a fat letter from the VARO today. Hoping it was a decision I eagerly opened it. Well the fat part was a little book about Chapter 35 benefits. The letter included said "I was receiving this letter because I was a parent or guardian of a child who may be eligible for education assistance under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The pamphlet describes the benefit." Notice the "may be" in the verbiage. My lawyer thinks they may have mailed these out to anyone who is TDIU. Anyone else receive a letter like this lately? Obviously I need to see a decision before I believe I have P&T but this seems like it could be the VAROs round about way of staying I am P&T. Anyone have any comments?

Good luck. I'm waiting for 2 large claims at the BVA myself that according to the ebenefits site a decision has been made and they are waiting dispatch. Hope the best for you.

Tell me about it. I broke both my feet, one in boot camp, the other in Marine Combat Training. Little did I know I guess I had pes cavus. So after 4 years of hiking a pack and running up the hills (mountains) of Camp Pendleton I lost my body. I remember the chants of suck it up Marine. Pain is just weakness leaving the body. Get the F**k up the hill. Now just about 20 years after entering boot camp I have had two failed back surgeries including an L3-S1 fusion with titanium cages, severe bliateral pes cavus, severe bilateral equinus, severe lower extremity issues including muscle wasting and atrophy, arthritis in my feet, weakness and severe pain in my feet, and severe back and leg pain 24/7. The 3 mg of Ativan, 180 mg of Morphine, and 120 mg of Oxycodone a day I take barely touch the pain. I have a spinal stimulator which takes a little bit off my legs when they are cramping and the pain is severe. I may have had some kind of genetic defects in my feet but prior to service I was just fine. Semper Fi do or Die Gung Ho Ho

Hi Everyone, I need to apologize as I have been MIA for many months. With 2 cases at the BVA totaling 17 issues some going back to 1996 I just needed to get away from VA claims etc. Anyhow it looks like the same "Judge" had both my cases with all the issues and made a decision as of 3/9/2010. Hopefully since they are all intwined the decisions will come back favorable. I wanted to post information about an attorney here since most people seem to hang in this area. I have been working with her for quite sometime and she is awesome. If she can't handle something she has a network of good fellow VA lawyers she can refer you to. As far as my issues are concerned her fee is the normal 20%. It seems like it's getting harder and harder to find a good lawyer period, yet find one to take the standard fee. Here is her info. Feel free to tell her Mike Riordan sent you. Valerie D. Metrakos The Metrakos Law Firm Valerie D. Metrakos Attorney at Law 1559B Sloat Boulevard, Suite 492 San Francisco, CA 94132-1222 T 415.545.VETS F 888.875.6611

Hey Rgero, As others stated it's tough to offer advice without knowledge of the entire case history. However, I will tell you this. I have been 10% right foot and 0% left foot since 1996. I have post fractures of the third metatarsals, severe pes cavus, severe equinus. I also like you have barely any ROM in the ankle area. I finally got an attorney to look into this because it has been on appeal since 2000. They found that based on VA law I should have been rated 40% - 50% combined for both feet since 1996. The problem with the VA and feet / ankles is the regs are so spotty. I have been rated under foot injuries, other since SC. I would be willing to review your case offline if you'd like. If not I'd suggest a lawyer. I have studied VA law since I got out in 96 and feel I am very knowledgeable but I have learned sometimes getting an attorney is the only way your going to get your true rating. In my case the back pay should be hefty so 20% isn't that bad. They also don't get a dime if they lose. I can also refer some attorney's to you if you'd like. Good luck.

Thank you and your absolutely right. I am fortunate that I received TDIU the first shot from the RO and only had to go to the first judge with SS. It just weighs on you when you look at your family and realize if you don't get this money it's not only hurting you but them too.

Thanks Halos. Yes these are aliments I am service connected for. Whether you call it lucky or not so lucky all of my 12 medical aliments are either direct service connections or secondary. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks will do. Thanks. Thanks, yes I have 5 months till I hit the 24 month Medicare wait.

Thanks. Don't worry it's all going to wipe out credit card debt!

Hi Everyone, I currently have an appeal going for P&T 100%. Initially the rater awarded it to me but the rating board or review board whatever the RO does before final decision took it away. Since I'm 38 they claimed my back condition could possibly get better. This is after 13 years of back and leg issues including two surgeries. My fusion of L3-S1 in 2009 was the last straw and I was was unable to work after that. They awarded me TDIU six months after but again denied the P&T. I just got my Social Security award yesterday. I assume this should help my P&T appeal? Anyone have experience with this? Thanks.

Hi Everyone, Still waiting on all my VA appeals but yesterday I finally sighed a huge relief. Social Security judge determined that I suffer from severe degenerative disc disease post 2 failed surgeries at L3-S1, severe depression and anxiety secondary to the spinal condition. She ruled the state agency did not take into account my subjective complaints and that the state examiners opinions that I could work carried little weight compared to the numerous doctors opinions of my disabilities over the last 13 years. The award went back several months before I filed so that was a bonus. It's BS that I had to wait a year and a half but thank God I did not have to appeal this one any further.

Congratulations! Stay motivated.

Thanks Pete

Hi Everyone, I finally had my SS hearing last week. I didn't get a decision off the bench like I had hoped for. Supposedly I got the hardest judge in the particular office. I couldn't really get a good read on the judge. My lawyer thought it went good but you know how that goes. The only thing that seemed hopeful was she did not call the vocational specialist to try and say what jobs I could do. Hurry up and wait again.

Here are the current regs: The Spine RatingGeneral Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine (For diagnostic codes 5235 to 5243 unless 5243 is evaluated under the Formula for Rating Intervertebral Disc Syndrome Based on Incapacitating Episodes): With or without symptoms such as pain (whther or not it radiates), stiffness, or aching in the area of the spine affected by residuals of injury or disease Unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine100Unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine50Unfavorable ankylosis of the entire cervical spine; or, forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine 30 degrees or less; or, favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine40Forward flexion of the cervical spine 15 degrees or less; or, favorable ankylosis of the entire cervical spine30Forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; or, forward flexion of the cervical spine greater than 15 degrees but not greater than 30 degrees; or, the combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or, the combined range of motion of the cervical spine not greater than 170 degrees; or, muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis20Forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 60 degrees but not greater than 85 degrees; or, forward flexion of the cervical spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 40 degrees; or, combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 120 degrees but not greater than 235 degrees; or, combined range of motion of the cervical spine greater than 170 degrees but not greater than 335 degrees; or, muscle spasm, guarding, or localized tenderness not resulting in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour; or, vertebral body fracture with loss of 50 percent or more of the height10Note (1):Evaluate any associated objective neurologic abnormalities, including, but not limited to, bowel or bladder impairment, separately, under an appropriate diagnostic code. Note (2):(See also Plate V.) For VA compensation purposes, normal forward flexion of the cervical spine is zero to 45 degrees, extension is zero to 45 degrees, left and right lateral flexion are zero to 45 degrees, and left and right lateral rotation are zero to 80 degrees. Normal forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is zero to 90 degrees, extension is zero to 30 degrees, left and right lateral flexion are zero to 30 degrees, and left and right lateral rotation are zero to 30 degrees. The combined range of motion refers to the sum of the range of forward flexion, extension, left and right lateral flexion, and left and right rotation. The normal combined range of motion of the cervical spine is 340 degrees and of the thoracolumbar spine is 240 degrees. The normal ranges of motion for each component of spinal motion provided in this note are the maximum that can be used for calculation of the combined range of motion. Note (3):In exceptional cases, an examiner may state that because of age, body habitus, neurologic disease, or other factors not the result of disease or injury of the spine, the range of motion of the spine in a particular individual should be considered normal for that individual, even though it does not conform to the normal range of motion stated in Note (2). Provided that the examiner supplies an explanation, the examiner's assessment that the range of motion is normal for that individual will be accepted. Note (4):Round each range of motion measurement to the nearest five degrees. Note (5):For VA compensation purposes, unfavorable ankylosis is a condition in which the entire cervical spine, the entire thoracolumbar spine, or the entire spine is fixed in flexion or extension, and the ankylosis results in one or more of the following: difficulty walking because of a limited line of vision; restricted opening of the mouth and chewing; breathing limited to diaphragmatic respiration; gastrointestinal symptoms due to pressure of the costal margin on the abdomen; dyspnea or dysphagia; atlantoaxial or cervical subluxation or dislocation; or neurologic symptoms due to nerve root stretching. Fixation of a spinal segment in neutral position (zero degrees) always represents favorable ankylosis. Note (6):Separately evaluate disability of the thoracolumbar and cervical spine segments, except when there is unfavorable ankylosis of both segments, which will be rated as a single disability. 5235 Vertebral fracture or dislocation 5236 Sacroiliac injury and weakness 5237 Lumbosacral or cervical strain 5238 Spinal stenosis 5239 Spondylolisthesis or segmental instability 5240 Ankylosing spondylitis 5241 Spinal fusion 5242 Degenerative arthritis of the spine (see also diagnostic code 5003) 5243 Intervertebral disc syndrome Evaluate intervertebral disc syndrome (preoperatively or postoperatively) either under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine or under the Formula for Rating Intervertebral Disc Syndrome Based on Incapacitating Episodes, whichever method results in the higher evaluation when all disabilities are combined under §4.25. Formula for Rating Intervertebral Disc Syndrome Based on Incapacitating Episodes With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months60With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 4 weeks but less than 6 weeks during the past 12 months40With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 2 weeks but less than 4 weeks during the past 12 months20With incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least one week but less than 2 weeks during the past 12 months10Note(1): For purposes of evaluations under diagnostic code 5243, an incapacitating episode is a period of acute signs and symptoms due to intervertebral disc syndrome that requires bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician. Note(2): If intervertebral disc syndrome is present in more than one spinal segment, provided that the effects in each spinal segment are clearly distinct, evaluate each segment on the basis of incapacitating episodes or under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, whichever method results in a higher evaluation for that segment.

Hey Chris, Halos posted some good questions that need to be answered. That aside yes your back becomes one big service connection. There are a few ways the VA rates backs today. 1. Incapacitating episodes - This in my mind is BS because a doc has to prescribe bed rest. I have had 3 levels of DDD, 2 surgeries, etc. over the past 13 years. I have never had a doc prescribe me bed rest. Even after surgery they want you up and walking around ASAP. (My warning - don't have back surgery unless you have a clear cut case or it is necessary for living :) 2. Range of motion - bending forward - to the side, etc. 3. Rate the orthopedic and neurological conditions - Meaning maybe you can bend forward to 20 degrees which would rate 40%, you get nerve blocks in your discs for your legs and you have measured atrophy and muscle wasting of both legs - 40% right leg / 40% left leg

CM do you have a service officer? If not get one so they can review your case. It's free. I agree with the other post call your congressman. Have you called your state social services to get food stamps and possibly cash from them? That's what those benefits are there for espically when a Vet needs them in my mind.

I got my own answer. As someone had told me my folder is at the VARO for a refresh and then it will be sent back to the board or AMC. Which means I am at the mercy of the VARO because with 10 service connections my folder is huge and they hate me ;)

Yes it's another way they don't impliment the grant the Veteran the most possible benefits under the law. What would be interesting to see is if any Vet ever recieved TDIU under b without a lawyer. I'd tend to think not but who knows.

Thanks Pete, I just talked with my CAVC lawyer and she stated that it shoud have gone straight to the board and not the VARO. Thanks.

4 increase items on appeal since 2000 (went to BVA in sept 2006, denied at BVA in mar. 2008, remanded at cavc dec. 2009, waiting at varo since feb. 2010) 3 appeals at VARO since 2002 (never left to bva in 2006 as I instructed per appeal form).

Hi Everyone, I'm at a loss here. My VARO has stated my C-file returned from the CAVC in Feb. of this year. They cannot give me any further information. They said no one has probably opened the folder to see the instructions. I went back and looked at my remand which I will post below and it is all addressed to the board. It definitely looks like new exams are needed. So I am wondering how does all this work? Is the VARO only refreshing my folder and then sending it to the BVA? Will the BVA then ask the VARO for exams for me? Anyone who has had a remand come back from the CAVC been in a similar situation? Thanks in advance. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS XXX ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Vet. App. No. 08-0983 ) ERIC K. SHINSEKI, ) Secretary of Veterans Affairs, ) ) Appellee. ) JOINT MOTION FOR REMAND Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 27(a), Appellee, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and Appellant, XXX, through their respective representatives, move the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) to vacate that part of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) decision, dated March 14, 2008, that denied Appellant’s claims of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for a back disability, involving lumbar strain and degenerative disk disease, entitlement to an initial compensable rating for disability manifested by testicular and groin pain, a compensable rating for residuals of a fracture, left 3rd metatarsal, and a rating in excess of 10 percent for residuals of a fracture, right 3rd metatarsal. The parties ask the Court to remand Appellant’s claims for further proceeding in accordance with the discussion below. For the purpose of this remand, or as otherwise provided, the parties accept the facts as provided by the Board. BASES FOR REMAND Back Disability The parties agree that the Court should remand the Board’s decision that denied Appellant’s claim of entitlement to an increased rating for his service-connected back disability. The Board erred when it did not ensure that Appellant was provided an adequate examination in this matter. The Secretary’s statutory “duty to assist” requires the Secretary to "make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim for a benefit under a law administered by the Secretary." 38 U.S.C. § 5103A. To satisfy this statutory duty, the Secretary must provide an adequate examination if it is necessary to decide the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(1); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.159© (2008). An adequate medical examination is a “thorough and contemporaneous medical examination, one which takes into account the records of prior medical treatment, so that the evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one.” Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991). If an examination report does not contain sufficient detail, the Secretary must “return the report as inadequate for evaluation purposes.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 (2008); see Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 1, 12 (2001). The parties submit that the evidence of record raised the issue of functional impairment of Appellant’s service connected back disability. (See R. at 1362-1475, 1525, 1640-1646, 1656-1660, 1664-1693, and 1722). The Board recognized this issue and cited 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45 and DeLuca v. Brown¸ 8 Vet. App. 202, 206-07 (1995). (R. at 7). The parties submit that the medical evidence does not include VA examinations, including VA examinations conducted in October 2000 (R. at383-85) and September 2004 (R. at1477-78), that provide findings regarding the level of functional impairment of Appellant’s service-connected back disability. In addition, in evaluating Appellant’s back disability, VA is required to evaluate neurological manifestations. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Note 1. In its decision, the Board indicated that Appellant’s “neurological complaints relate to the lower extremities”, and “[t]hus DCs 8522-8530 are potentially applicable.” (R. at 11). The Board then concluded that the evidence “demonstrate[d] mild neurologic manifestations,” but then admitted the “medical evidence does not specifically state which nerves were affected by the veteran’s low back disability.” (R. at 11-12). However, the Board did not obtain a VA medical examination to assess the nerves which are involved in Appellant’s back disability. As the Board noted Appellant’s neurological complaints involve the lower extremities, and, therefore, 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Codes 8522-8530 may apply in this case. (See R. at 11). Based on the foregoing, the parties agree that remand is necessary for the VA to provide Appellant with an adequate examination to evaluate any functional impairment and neurological manifestations due to Appellant’s service-connected back disability. In addition, the parties submit that remand is necessary for the Board to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for denying a higher rating for Appellant’s service-connected back disability. The Board did not discuss the December 2004 (1520-22) and October 2007 (R. at 1738-40) medical statements Appellant submitted from Dr. Craig N. Bash. In those statements, Dr. Bash essentially stated that the symptoms, including persistent sciatic nerve problems, muscle spasm, associated with Appellant’s back disability warrant the assignment of a higher disability rating. Id. This evidence appears to be relevant to Appellant’s claim. However, the Board did not discuss it in its analysis. “Fulfillment of the reasons or bases mandate requires the BVA to set forth the precise basis for its decision, to analyze the credibility and probative value of all material evidence submitted by and on behalf of a claimant in support of the claim, and to provide a statement of its reasons or bases for rejecting any such evidence.” Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 40 (1994). Therefore, remand is required for the Board to readjudicate this matter with consideration of Dr. Bash’s December 2004 and October 2007 statements. Disability Manifested by Testicular and Groin Pain The parties submit that remand is necessary for the Board to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for denying Appellant’s claim of entitlement to a compensable rating for disability manifested by testicular and groin pain. The Board did not discuss the December 2004 (1520-22) and October 2007 (R. at 1738-40) medical statements Appellant submitted from Dr. Craig N. Bash. In the December 2004 statement, Dr. Bash stated that the Appellant’s service-connected testicular disability should be rated under diagnostic codes “7804 or 8730 because his symptoms likely originate from the ilio-inguninal nerve and not from his prostrate or bladder organ systems and the level of the diagnostic sub-rating should be set at a level to incorporate his pain and restrictions of movement . . . .” (R. at 1520). In the November 2007 statement, Dr. Bash asserted that Appellant’s disability is more disabling than currently evaluated and suggests that Appellant’s disability should be evaluated under Diagnostic Code 8530. (R. at 1739). The parties note that service connection for right groin neuralgia with nerve entrapment was previously denied in June 2003. (R. at 1126). However, given that this evidence was submitted in the context of Appellant’s increased rating claim, the Board is required to address whether the information provided by Dr. Bash could provide any basis for a higher disability rating for his service-connected disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 56-57 (1990). Therefore, remand is required for the Board to readjudicate this matter with consideration of Dr. Bash’s December 2004 and October 2007 statements. Residuals of a fracture, left 3rd metatarsal and Residuals of a fracture, right 3rd metatarsal. The parties agree that the Board did not provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for denying Appellant’s claims of entitlement to increased ratings for Appellant’s service-connected residuals of a fracture of the left 3rd metatarsal and residuals of a fracture of the right 3rd metatarsal. In its decision, the Board determined that a preponderance of the evidence was against the claims. (See R. at 17-19). However, the Board did not consider in its evaluation the May 15, 2000, report of Dr. Eric Silverstein. (R. at 326). In his report, Dr. Silverstein observed that the symptoms associated with Appellant feet included pain as over the medial aspect of the feet radiating down to the toes and diagnosed Appellant as having tarsal tunnel syndrome bilateral feet. Id. Tarsal Tunnel syndrome is “a complex of symptoms resulting from compression of the posterior tibial nerve of the plantar nerves in the tarsal tunnel, with pain, numbness, and tingling paresthesis of the sole of the feet.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 1873 (31st ed. 2007). The parties note that this evidence is potentially relevant to Appellant’s claim. See Gabrielson v. Brown, supra. Therefore, the parties agree that remand is necessary for the Board to re-evaluate Appellant’s bilateral foot condition in light of the foregoing. Wherefore, the parties respectfully move the Court to vacate, in part, the Board’s March 14, 2008, decision and remand Appellant’s case for the Board’s compliance with the instructions and discussion set forth above. Appellant is entitled to submit additional evidence and argument on remand, Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369, 372 (1999) (per curiam order), and VA is obligated to conduct a critical examination of the justification for the decision. Fletcher v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 394, 397 (1991). VA should incorporate this Joint Motion for Remand with the claims file for consideration in its readjudication of the claims. In any subsequent decision, the Board must set forth adequate reasons or bases for its findings and conclusions on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 56-57.

After 2 back surgeries I hope to not have any surgeries again LOL. I hear about the drug issue. I just watched a special about oxy and Florida. It really screws anyone who is in true chronic pain.