Sgt. Wilky

To resurrect this thread a bit, there has been no word since May of my impending proposal to sever service connection...obviously, it's been 7 months and every month that goes is another month I may be held liable for getting paid "too much" because the VA can't get this proverbial $%^& together. I guess my question is, do I press my VSO harder for more information? I finally have some documentation from my neurologist and Rheumatologist, and now, because of this letter, at least I'm getting some help. I'm on 7 different medications now...Good God... Sgt. Wilky

I always thought it was immoral for the VA to bill medicare or my private insurance for ailments. They owe, they should pay. "Big Insurance" or not, the VA is good at passing the buck, and this is another prime example of them not taking responsibility for their promises. Sgt. Wilky

The examiner's job is to look out for the VA, not you. It's a highly adversarial process in which you, the claimant(s) are the adversary. Hadit and its contributors have done an excellent job in trying to help the veterans with their claims. Yes, most of us have had VSOs, attorneys, or other organizations to help us, but in the end, knowledge is power and if you have patience and are willing to learn and fight, you can-and most likely will-win your case. Semper Fi, Sgt. Wilky

Don't be discouraged by the VA's response. I was in artillery and they had the gall to deny my tinnitus claims as well. I would follow the advice already given by the other folks here and appeal it. My tinnitus is so bad, the VA has given me hearing aids (even though they don't work well). Semper Fi, Sgt. Wilky

You can and should claim it. It can (and without treatment) become a painful condition. You will net a 0% out of it, but really, I don't know why it would or should be more than that anyway. Getting it rated and SC'd will net the treatment available. Sgt. Wilky

And not only do veterans have to PROVE everything, we have to CONTINUOUSLY PROVE it time and time again. How was this guy not harassed like us?

I'm certainly no expert, but all I can really tell you is, you need to keep fighting and see this through. 2 1/2 years is a long time yes, but the system is so broke, it took me almost 9 years. I'm NOT saying it will take that long, but every step, every phase of this process takes too long. I did not see anywhere in your post where you have someone or some organization helping you. There are varying degrees of opinion here on who that should be, but the consensus here is, you should not be filing these claims on your own. You need the assistance of a VSO, whether that be a county or parrish VSO, the DAV, an attorney...someone to help you. Some of these organizations are free, some will have a type of a charge scale (I used my county and state VSO). I think you need to make this priority. As for being treated like a liar, many if not most of the veterans on this site have at one time or another (I certainly have) been accused of lying. If they really thought you were lying, they'd open an investigation on you and you'd be charged, blah, blah, blah. They're just trying to discourage you. You know the evidence is there. More often than not, the veteran who puts his nose to the grindstone will win. DON'T GIVE UP. DON'T GIVE IN. Pay them back by fighting. If you give up, you're validating THEIR arguments. Don't do it. Stay in the fight for yourself. Stay in the fight for your family. Stay in the fight for every other veteran who let the VA win. When the VA screwed me over, I got mad and then I dug in. Other veterans have given up and now they have nothing to show for it. Even if they deny, don't give up. If they grant, they will try to low-ball you. Don't give up. When you hear nothing for weeks or months, don't give up. If you're tired, take a nap. But when you wake up, you still don't give up. When you think you can't take anymore, take one more. You can always take one more. It's the VA, not an incoming artillery round. It sucks. It sucks real bad I get it. But when you win, it will have been worth it the fight. Sgt. Wilky

I'm pretty sure I was/am being "top-sheeted". I fought several claims for over 8 years, and when I finally got to the BVA Judge, he quipped, "The evidence is and has been here all along, I don't know why your claim has gone so long..." The hell you don't know. Regardless, everything was granted, with one remand which is still floating around out there somewhere. Sgt. Wilky

I would think the sooner you know, the sooner you can either be relieved, or you can start your appeal. Either way, I can't think of a downside to having your decision moved up on the calendar. Sgt. Wilky

Apparently, a VA PA wrote my C&P exam, screwing over royally...but hopefully, my neurologist, PCP, and Rheumatologist can rectify that...

I too, am waiting on that shoe to drop. I am rated at 50% for PTSD, but I do have medical documentation of symptoms (Sleeplessness, RA, and other things that are symptomatic and secondary to it). I also have a good church that I stay pretty active in and the spiritual counseling that I get from my pastor is helpful. I understand religion may not be many people's thing, but I've found it very helpful. I was told years ago that the VA accepts this as a type of "treatment" and even my own neurologist agrees that those kinds of treatments are helpful to a lot of patients. Yes, my pastor has written a letter or two on my behalf when I first put the claim in, and I intend to use that as my reasoning for not seeking their "treatment" when my eventual CFE is ordered. I happened to find this article ( https://www.pnj.com/story/news/military/2014/10/13/va-unwittingly-scares-ptsd-victims/17172265/ ) and there is one crucial sentence in which I cannot seem to verify and that is: "After PTSD sufferers are diagnosed and qualify for disability pay, the VA cannot compel them to seek treatment. As the number of cases has soared, up 42 percent between 2008 and 2012 to more than 500,000, the agency finds itself losing contact with many veterans. Paradoxically, a federal statute prohibits the VA from requiring treatment or examinations." Perhaps others can chime in, but although the above statement may be true, how it effects the payment and disbursement of benefits can be disturbing. Good luck today and seek the help that you need! Sgt. Wilky

Here! Semper Fi, Sgt. Wilky

I would remove your personal information from this post! 7307 Gastritis, hypertrophic (identified by gastroscope): Chronic; with severe hemorrhages, or large ulcerated or eroded areas 60 Chronic; with multiple small eroded or ulcerated areas, and symptoms 30 Chronic; with small nodular lesions, and symptoms 10 Gastritis, atrophic. A complication of a number of diseases, including pernicious anemia. Rate the underlying condition. It seems that you would fall under the 30% category. But be prepared for the VA screw-over. They will probably try to low ball it at 0% or 10%.

Navy4life, I will post portions of my BVA decision that deal with the judge's rational (it's kinda long [I will highlight the pertinent parts] ) : Service Connection Legal Criteria Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C.A. ง 1110; 38 C.F.R. ง 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. ง 3.303(d). As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999), citing Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Service connection may also be granted on a presumptive basis for a Persian Gulf veteran who exhibits objective indications of qualifying chronic disability, including resulting from undiagnosed illness, that became manifest either during active service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War, or to a degree of 10 percent or more not later than December 21, 2016, and which by history, physical examination, and laboratory tests cannot be attributed to any known clinical diagnosis. 38 U.S.C.A. ง 1117; 38 C.F.R. ง 3.317(a)(1). In claims based on qualifying chronic disability, unlike those for "direct service connection," there is no requirement that there be competent evidence of a nexus between the claimed illness and service. Gutierrez v. Principi, 19 Vet. App. 1, 8-9 (2004). Notably, laypersons are competent to report objective signs of illness. To determine whether the undiagnosed illness is manifested to a degree of 10 percent or more the condition must be rated by analogy to a disease or injury in which the functions affected, anatomical location, or symptomatology are similar. See 38 C.F.R. ง 3.317(a)(5); see also Stankevich v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 470 (2006). A "qualifying chronic disability" for purposes of 38 U.S.C.A. ง 1117 is a chronic disability resulting from (1) an undiagnosed illness, (2) a medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness (such as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), fibromyalgia, or irritable bowel syndrome) that is defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms, or (3), any diagnosed illness that the Secretary determines in regulation prescribed under 38 U.S.C.A. ง 1117(d) warrants a presumption of service connection. 38 U.S.C.A. ง 1117(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. ง 3.317(a), (c). As an initial matter, the diseases for which the Secretary has established a presumption under (3) are all infectious in nature. The Veteran does not allege, and the record does not suggest, that he has any of the listed diseases. "Objective indications of chronic disability" include both "signs," in the medical sense of objective evidence perceptible to a physician, and other, non-medical indicators that are capable of independent verification. To fulfill the requirement of chronicity, the illness must have persisted for a period of six months. 38 C.F.R. ง 3.317(a)(2), (3). Signs or symptoms that may be manifestations of undiagnosed illness include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) fatigue; (2) signs or symptoms involving skin; (3) headache; (4) muscle pain; (5) joint pain; (6) neurologic signs or symptoms; (7) neuropsychological signs or symptoms; (8) signs or symptoms involving the respiratory system (upper or lower); (9) sleep disturbances; (10) gastrointestinal signs or symptoms; (11) cardiovascular signs or symptoms; (12) abnormal weight loss; and (13) menstrual disorders. 38 C.F.R. ง 3.317(b). Effective July 13, 2010, VA amended its adjudication regulations governing presumptions for certain Persian Gulf War veterans. Such revisions amend ง 3.317(a)(2)(i)(B) to clarify that chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome are examples of medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illnesses and are not an exclusive list of such illnesses. Additionally, the amendment removes ง 3.317(a)(2)(i)(B)(4) which reserves to the Secretary the authority to determine whether additional illnesses are "medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illnesses" as defined in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) so that VA adjudicators will have the authority to determine on a case-by-case basis whether additional diseases meet the criteria of paragraph (a)(2)(ii). These amendments are applicable to claims pending before VA on October 7, 2010, as well as claims filed with or remanded to VA after that date. See 75 Fed. Reg. 61,997 (Oct. 7, 2010). Because the Veteran has service in Kuwait from April 2003 to June 2003, he has qualifying service as a Persian Gulf Veteran; therefore, the Board has also considered presumptive service connection for a disorder manifested by upper and lower back pain with radiation into the lower extremities, under 38 U.S.C.A. ง 1117 and 38 C.F.R. ง 3.317. Under 38 U.S.C.A. ง 1117(a)(2) and 38 C.F.R. ง 3.317(a)(2)(i), "Qualifying chronic disability" includes: (a) an undiagnosed illness; (b) a "medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness" (such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and functional gastrointestinal disorders) that is defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms; or (c) any diagnosed illness that the Secretary determines, in regulations, warrants a presumption of service connection. After review of the lay and medical evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence is in equipoise as to whether presumptive service connection for an undiagnosed illness characterized by upper and lower back pain with radiation into the lower extremities is warranted. As a lay person, the Veteran is competent to report upper and lower back pain with radiation into the lower extremities, and the account is deemed credible, particularly because the Veteran has sought medical treatment for the symptoms during the course of the appeal. See, e.g., October 2010 private treatment record. The complaints of upper and lower back pain with radiation into the lower extremities have been evaluated and are not attributed to a medical diagnosis; therefore, there is evidence of an undiagnosed illness manifested by upper and lower back pain with radiation into the lower extremities of record. The Board next finds that the undiagnosed illness manifested by upper and lower back pain with radiation into the lower extremities has manifested to a compensable degree when rated by analogy to a spine disability under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine. 38 C.F.R. ง 4.71a. In regard to the method of rating based on the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, a 10 percent rating is assigned for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 60 degrees but not greater than 85 degrees; or, combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 120 degrees but not greater than 235 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 height under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine. Note (1) for the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine reads that any associated objective neurologic abnormalities should be rated separately under an appropriate diagnostic code. In this case, the evidence shows that, during a flare-up of back pain, thoracolumbar spine flexion is limited to 80 degrees; therefore, the criteria for a 10 percent rating under General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine are met. The Board further finds that the pain radiating into the lower extremities has manifested to a compensable degree when rated by analogy to sciatic neuritis under the criteria at 38 C.F.R. ง 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 8620. Under DC 8620, disability ratings of 10, 20, 40, and 60 are warranted, respectively, for mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe (with marked muscular atrophy) neuritis of the sciatic nerve. In this case, the evidence shows intermittent pain in the bilateral lower extremities and some mild loss of reflexes in the lower extremities without muscle or sensory deficits. See April 2010 VA examination report (noting a 3 out of 4 for reflexes); see October 2010 private treatment record. Because the symptoms described above are largely sensory (i.e., intermittent pain) with only some decrease in reflex noted in the lower extremities, the Board finds that the criteria for a 10 percent rating for mild sciatic neuritis are approximated. In consideration thereof, and resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that presumptive service connection for an undiagnosed illness characterized by upper and lower back pain with radiation into the lower extremities is warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. ง 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. ง 3.102. So while the Judge didn't actually diagnose me per se, for some reason (which I don't understand fully yet) the VA kept denying my simple claim of sciatica and this "corkscrew" pain I have in upper back. I believe it's mostly muscle related and could possibly have links to mefloquine, but I don't know. Sorry for the confusion. I hope this answers your question.

Thank you to everyone who is trying to help me! I will do my best to answer the questions and find the information you've all requested. I have to look through my binders of info!

So here is my C&P exam notes with my notes in bold: ========================================================================= Date/Time: 18 May 2018 @ 1330 Note Title: C&P MEDICAL Location: Cheyenne WY VAC Signed By: WEINLAND,ROBERT Co-signed By: WEINLAND,ROBERT Date/Time Signed: 18 May 2018 @ 1614 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOCAL TITLE: C&P MEDICAL STANDARD TITLE: C & P EXAMINATION NOTE DATE OF NOTE: MAY 18, 2018@13:30 ENTRY DATE: MAY 18, 2018@16:14:40 AUTHOR: WEINLAND,ROBERT EXP COSIGNER: URGENCY: STATUS: COMPLETED Back (Thoracolumbar Spine) Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire Name of patient/Veteran: Is this DBQ being completed in conjunction with a VA 21-2507, C&P Examination Request? [X] Yes [ ] No ACE and Evidence Review ----------------------- Indicate method used to obtain medical information to complete this document: [X] In-person examination Evidence Review --------------- Evidence reviewed (check all that apply): [X] VA e-folder (VBMS or Virtual VA) [X] CPRS 1. Diagnosis ------------ Does the Veteran now have or has he/she ever been diagnosed with a thoracolumbar spine (back) condition? [ ] Yes [X] No -NOT BY A PHYSICIAN. THE JUDGE AT MY BVA HEARING SAID "THE VETERAN HAS AN UNDIAGNOSED ILLNESS CHARACTERIZED BY UPPER AND LOWER BACK PAIN WITH RADIATION INTO THE LOWER EXTREMITIES TO A COMPENSABLE DEGREE. 2. Medical history ------------------ a. Describe the history (including onset and course) of the Veteran's thoracolumbar spine (back) condition (brief summary): Last C&P exam for this condition was 04/26/2010, please see this exam for further Hx. States that since this last exam feels his thoracic spine pain is increased by approximately 10%. Denies any history of surgery for a back condition. Reports that his last evaluation for this condition was done by his PCP in 07/2015 with no diagnosis associated with this condition. Does complain of intermittent numbness/tingling radiating into bilateral lower extremities following the L4 dermatome to the level of his great toes. States this occurs twice a day lasting 15 minutes, rated at 3/10. Does complain of constant back pain thoracic greater than LS spine, described as a throbbing pain, rated at 3/10, with flares of sharp throbbing pain, that occur weekly, lasting 2 hours, rated at 5/10. Precipitating factors: Nothing he knows of. Alleviating factors: Time.-I ALSO SAID THAT REST AND MEDICATION ARE ALLEVIATING FACTORS Effects on employment: Decreased capacity to lift or bend.-I ALSO SAID THAT I HAD TO QUIT A SECOND JOB IN 3/2015 BECAUSE THE JOB SIGNIFICANTLY ADDED TO THE PAIN FACTORS WHEN BEING UP AND MOVING AND CARRYING THE EQUIPMENT BELT I WAS SUPPOSED TO CARRY, AND AFTER 8 YEARS OF IT, I COULD NO LONGER DO IT, BUT I KEPT MY REGULAR JOB BECAUSE I COULDN'T AFFORD TO QUIT WORKING ALTOGETHER. THE PAIN MANIFESTS MY INABILITY TO GET PROPER SLEEP AND REDUCES MY FUNCTIONAL ABILITY TO WORK AND LIVE NORMALLY. THE JOINT AND MUSCLE PAIN CAUSE ME TO HAVE FATIGUE AND FEELINGS OF DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY. I CAN NO LONGER GO HIKING BECAUSE I CANNOT CARRY A BACK PACK FOR TOO LONG. CAMPING IS VERY DIFFICULT (JUST TRYING TO INCLUDE ALL THE WAYS IN WHICH THIS HAS AFFECTED ME). REVIEW OF C-FILE/STRs: No documentation noted in the provided records for C/O, evaluation, diagnosis, or treatment for a back condition since last C&P exam for this condition.-I HADN'T SEEN VA DOCTOR, BUT I HAVE MENTIONED IT SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE YEARS TO MY PRIVATE INSURANCE PHYSICIAN. b. Does the Veteran report flare-ups of the thoracolumbar spine (back)? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, document the Veteran's description of the flare-ups in his or her own words: See Hx section above. c. Does the Veteran report having any functional loss or functional impairment of the thoracolumbar spine (back) (regardless of repetitive use)? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, document the Veteran's description of functional loss or functional impairment in his or her own words. See Hx section above.-WAS VERY PUSHY AND IMPATIENT 3. Range of motion (ROM) and functional limitation -------------------------------------------------- a. Initial range of motion [X] All normal-NO, IT WAS NOT. [ ] Abnormal or outside of normal range [ ] Unable to test (please explain) [ ] Not indicated (please explain) Forward Flexion (0 to 90): 0 to 90 degrees-TOLD ME TO BEND MY KNEES AND TOUCH THE FLOOR IN ORDER TO MEASURE THAT MY FLEXION COULD REACH 90 DEGREES. THE C&P EXAMINER IN 2010 NEVER TOLD ME TO DO THAT. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.-THIS IS WHERE AND WHEN THE PAIN AND FLARE UP BEGAN FOR ME THAT DAY. Extension (0 to 30): 0 to 30 degrees Right Lateral Flexion (0 to 30): 0 to 30 degrees Left Lateral Flexion (0 to 30): 0 to 30 degrees Right Lateral Rotation (0 to 30): 0 to 30 degrees Left Lateral Rotation (0 to 30): 0 to 30 degrees Description of pain (select best response): No pain noted on exam-THERE WAS PLENTY OF PAIN. THIS IS THE PART WHERE HE TOLD ME TO "PUSH PAST THE PAIN" SEVERAL TIMES. NEVER ASKED IF IT WAS PAINFUL. I STATED THAT IT WAS PAINFUL AND HE TOLD ME, "I DIDN'T ASK YOU THAT" Is there evidence of pain with weight bearing? [ ] Yes [X] No Is there objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joints or associated soft tissue of the thoracolumbar spine (back)? [ ] Yes [X] No-NOT DURING A FLARE-UP -MISSING SECTION 3B-WOULD HAVE BENEFITED ME! -MISSING SECTION 3C-MAY/MAY NOT HAVE BENEFITED ME! b. Observed repetitive use Is the Veteran able to perform repetitive use testing with at least three repetitions? [X] Yes [ ] No Is there additional loss of function or range of motion after three repetitions? [ ] Yes [X] No -EXAMINER DID NOT DOCUMENT THE ANSWER AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 4B. HE SAID MY RANGE OF MOTION INCREASED WITH NO VERIFICATION. TOLD ME TO DO THE EXERCISES AS FAST AS I COULD. FOR THE SECOND TIME DURING THE EXAM, HE TOLD ME TO PUSH PAST THE PAIN AND DO IT AS QUICKLY AS I COULD. HE SAID "WE NEED TO ACHIEVE MAX FORWARD FLEXION". c. Repeated use over time Is the Veteran being examined immediately after repetitive use over time? [ ] Yes [X] No If the examination is not being conducted immediately after repetitive use over time: [ ] The examination is medically consistent with the Veteran's statements describing functional loss with repetitive use over time. [ ] The examination is medically inconsistent with the Veteran's statements describing functional loss with repetitive use over time. Please explain. [X] The examination is neither medically consistent or inconsistent with the Veteran's statements describing functional loss with repetitive use over time. Does pain, weakness, fatigability or incoordination significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over a period of time? [ ] Yes [X] No [ ] Unable to say w/o mere speculation-THE ANSWER IS "YES" BUT HE NEVER ASKED ME THE QUESTION. REPETITIVE USE OVER TIME CAUSES INCREASED PAIN AND FATIGABILITY. d. Flare-ups Is the exam being conducted during a flare-up? [ ] Yes [X] No If the examination is not being conducted during a flare-up: [ ] The examination is medically consistent with the Veteran's statements describing functional loss during flare-ups. [ ] The examination is medically inconsistent with the Veteran's statements describing functional loss during flare-ups. Please explain. [X] The examination is neither medically consistent or inconsistent with the Veteran's statements describing functional loss during flare-ups. Does pain, weakness, fatigability or incoordination significantly limit functional ability with flare-ups? [ ] Yes [X] No [ ] Unable to say w/o mere speculation-HOW WOULD HE KNOW? HE JUST STATED ABOVE THAT HE WASN'T EXAMINING ME DURING A FLARE-UP, AND THAT IS TRUE. NEVER EVEN ASKED ME THE QUESTION. EXAMINER DISREGARDED ALL MENTIONs AND COMPLAINTS OF PAIN. SECTION V OF THIS DBQ IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS EXAM. THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE BENEFICIAL AND CRUCIAL TO MY CLAIM. SECTION V FROM THE DBQ IS MISSING. NO MENTION OF THE COMPLAINTS OF PAIN-CRUCIAL TO MY CLAIM e. Guarding and muscle spasm-SUPPOSED TO BE SECTION VI Does the Veteran have guarding or muscle spasm of the thoracolumbar spine (back)? [ ] Yes [X] No-GUARDING, YES. ESPECIALLY DURING FLARE UPS. 6B GAIT-MISSING FROM THE RECORD. HE SAID I HAVE A NORMAL GAIT. ANYONE WHO KNOWS ME KNOWS THAT I DON'T HAVE A NORMAL GAIT DUE TO THE NATURE OF MY OTHER ISSUES, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE CURRENT ISSUE AT HAND. 6C. MISSING FROM THE RECORD. SECTION VII-MISSING FROM THE RECORD! AGAIN, AN ENTIRE SECTION THAT WOULD HAVE BENEFITED THE VETERAN IS COMPLETELY ABSENT FROM THE EXAMINER'S REPORT. f. Additional factors contributing to disability In addition to those addressed above, are there additional contributing factors of disability? Please select all that apply and describe: None-WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP. NEVER MENTIONED IT AGAIN. 4. Muscle strength testing -------------------------- a. Rate strength according to the following scale: 0/5 No muscle movement 1/5 Palpable or visible muscle contraction, but no joint movement 2/5 Active movement with gravity eliminated 3/5 Active movement against gravity 4/5 Active movement against some resistance 5/5 Normal strength Hip flexion: Right: [X] 5/5 [ ] 4/5 [ ] 3/5 [ ] 2/5 [ ] 1/5 [ ] 0/5 Left: [X] 5/5 [ ] 4/5 [ ] 3/5 [ ] 2/5 [ ] 1/5 [ ] 0/5 Knee extension: Right: [X] 5/5 [ ] 4/5 [ ] 3/5 [ ] 2/5 [ ] 1/5 [ ] 0/5 Left: [X] 5/5 [ ] 4/5 [ ] 3/5 [ ] 2/5 [ ] 1/5 [ ] 0/5 Ankle plantar flexion: Right: [X] 5/5 [ ] 4/5 [ ] 3/5 [ ] 2/5 [ ] 1/5 [ ] 0/5 Left: [X] 5/5 [ ] 4/5 [ ] 3/5 [ ] 2/5 [ ] 1/5 [ ] 0/5 Ankle dorsiflexion: Right: [X] 5/5 [ ] 4/5 [ ] 3/5 [ ] 2/5 [ ] 1/5 [ ] 0/5 Left: [X] 5/5 [ ] 4/5 [ ] 3/5 [ ] 2/5 [ ] 1/5 [ ] 0/5 Great toe extension: Right: [X] 5/5 [ ] 4/5 [ ] 3/5 [ ] 2/5 [ ] 1/5 [ ] 0/5 Left: [X] 5/5 [ ] 4/5 [ ] 3/5 [ ] 2/5 [ ] 1/5 [ ] 0/5 b. Does the Veteran have muscle atrophy? [ ] Yes [X] No 5. Reflex exam -------------- Rate deep tendon reflexes (DTRs) according to the following scale: 0 Absent 1+ Hypoactive 2+ Normal 3+ Hyperactive without clonus 4+ Hyperactive with clonus Knee: Right: [ ] 0 [ ] 1+ [X] 2+ [ ] 3+ [ ] 4+ Left: [ ] 0 [ ] 1+ [X] 2+ [ ] 3+ [ ] 4+ Ankle: Right: [ ] 0 [ ] 1+ [X] 2+ [ ] 3+ [ ] 4+ Left: [ ] 0 [ ] 1+ [X] 2+ [ ] 3+ [ ] 4+ 6. Sensory exam --------------- Provide results for sensation to light touch (dermatome) testing: Upper anterior thigh (L2): Right: [X] Normal [ ] Decreased [ ] Absent Left: [X] Normal [ ] Decreased [ ] Absent Thigh/knee (L3/4): Right: [X] Normal [ ] Decreased [ ] Absent Left: [X] Normal [ ] Decreased [ ] Absent Lower leg/ankle (L4/L5/S1): Right: [X] Normal [ ] Decreased [ ] Absent Left: [X] Normal [ ] Decreased [ ] Absent Foot/toes (L5): Right: [X] Normal [ ] Decreased [ ] Absent Left: [X] Normal [ ] Decreased [ ] Absent 7. Straight leg raising test-NEVER PERFORMED MY SYMPTOMS OF THE LOWER BACK INCLUDE SYMPTOMS OF SCIATICA OF BOTH EXTREMITIES. ---------------------------- Provide straight leg raising test results: Right: [X] Negative [ ] Positive [ ] Unable to perform-NEVER PERFORMED-ANSWERED AS THOUGH HE DID Left: [X] Negative [ ] Positive [ ] Unable to perform-NEVER PERFORMED-ANSWERED AS THOUGH HE DID 8. Radiculopathy-AGAIN, SYMPTOMS OF THE LOWER BACK INCLUDE SCIATICA OF BOTH EXTREMITIES. EXAMINER NEVER PERFORMED THESE TESTS. ---------------- Does the Veteran have radicular pain or any other signs or symptoms due to radiculopathy? [ ] Yes [X] No-YES I TOLD HIM THIS AS THE BEGINNING OF THE EXAM 9. Ankylosis ------------ Is there ankylosis of the spine? [ ] Yes [X] No 10. Other neurologic abnormalities ---------------------------------- Does the Veteran have any other neurologic abnormalities or findings related to a thoracolumbar spine (back) condition (such as bowel or bladder problems/pathologic reflexes)? [ ] Yes [X] No 11. Intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) and episodes requiring bed rest ----------------------------------------------------------------------- a. Does the Veteran have IVDS of the thoracolumbar spine? [ ] Yes [X] No 12. Assistive devices --------------------- a. Does the Veteran use any assistive device(s) as a normal mode of locomotion, although occasional locomotion by other methods may be possible? [ ] Yes [X] No b. If the Veteran uses any assistive devices, specify the condition and identify the assistive device used for each condition: No response provided. 13. Remaining effective function of the extremities --------------------------------------------------- Due to a thoracolumbar spine (back) condition, is there functional impairment of an extremity such that no effective function remains other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation with prosthesis? (Functions of the upper extremity include grasping, manipulation, etc.; functions of the lower extremity include balance and propulsion, etc.) [X] No 14. Other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs, symptoms and scars ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a. Does the Veteran have any other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs or symptoms related to any conditions listed in the Diagnosis Section above? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, describe (brief summary): Veteran is obese, with normal, steady, stable gait. b. Does the Veteran have any scars (surgical or otherwise) related to any conditions or to the treatment of any conditions listed in the Diagnosis Section above? [ ] Yes [X] No c. Comments, if any: No response provided 15. Diagnostic testing ---------------------- a. Have imaging studies of the thoracolumbar spine been performed and are the results available? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, is arthritis documented? [ ] Yes [X] No-IT IS SUPPOSED BY MY PHYSICIAN, BUT DOES NOT HAVE A RADIOLOGICAL FINDING AS OF YET. b. Does the Veteran have a thoracic vertebral fracture with loss of 50 percent or more of height? [ ] Yes [X] No c. Are there any other significant diagnostic test findings and/or results? [ ] Yes [X] No 16. Functional impact --------------------- Does the Veteran's thoracolumbar spine (back) condition impact on his or her ability to work? [ ] Yes [X] No-YES, I WORK ONLY 3 DAYS A WEEK. 17. Remarks, if any: -------------------- There is insufficient clinical evidence to support a diagnosis associated with a back condition, normal PE and x-rays. CORREIA MEDICAL STATEMENT: Is the contralateral joint uninjured / normal? YES Pain with non-weight bearing (at rest)? None noted on exam. Pain with passive ROM? None noted on exam.-YES Pain with weight bearing? None noted on exam /es/ ROBERT WEINLAND FNP-BC-THIS DUDE IS A JERK Nurse Practitioner Signed: 05/18/2018 16:14 -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I don't know what prompted the C&P exam. The examiner said it was to keep the bean counters happy. I knew then I was in trouble...I am working on getting the C&P exam posted...

Here is the proposal sent to me a few days ago... Document (4).pdf

Have you scanned and attached anywhere here- the SOC the BVA referred to? No, I never received this SOC from the Remand. I did however, receive a letter denying the BVA's remand for them to reconsider. They never sent me or my VSO anything on the BVA remand until the denial for the increase to 20%. Have you scan and attached here anywhere , the proposed reduction letter? I did not, but I will do that! If not please cover your C file #, name, address, prior to scanning it. Did they acknowledge the grant of the 20% for the right femoral problems and pay that retro yet? Yes, they acknowledged the grant and paid the retro back in March of 2016 for all the issues that were granted. Do you have a copy of the C & P exam they based their decision on? I do, and it was terrible reading through the lies. If they commited a CUE in the decision, that might be able to be fixed sooner than later- Do you know the C & P examiner's name- if so have you googled them? I do know his name as it is on the C&P exam report I printed it off; and yes, I Googled him and he doesn't have good reviews at all. He's a Nurse Practitioner at the Cheyenne, WY VA Hospital. For all we know the examiner might have been a gynecologist- that is what they pulled on a vet here many years ago- a male vet with a physical disability- I will get those scanned and posted, hopefully by the end of the day!

Yes! The Docket Number is: 10-42 734 Archive Date is: 10/21/15

I've been trying to find this "with just one medical opinion" for a few days now in the M21 and 38 CFR and maybe I've just missed it, but I can't find it.

The ten year rule does not always apply: §3.957 Service connection. Service connection for any disability or death granted or continued under title 38 U.S.C., which has been in effect for 10 or more years will not be severed except upon a showing that the original grant was based on fraud or it is clearly shown from military records that the person concerned did not have the requisite service or character of discharge. The 10-year period will be computed from the effective date of the Department of Veterans Affairs finding of service connection to the effective date of the rating decision severing service connection, after compliance with §3.105(d). The protection afforded in this section extends to claims for dependency and indemnity compensation or death compensation. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1159) [33 FR 15286, Oct. 15, 1968] §3.105 Revision of decisions. The provisions of this section apply except where an award was based on an act of commission or omission by the payee, or with his or her knowledge (§3.500(b)); there is a change in law or a Department of Veterans Affairs issue, or a change in interpretation of law or a Department of Veterans Affairs issue (§3.114); or the evidence establishes that service connection was clearly illegal. The provisions with respect to the date of discontinuance of benefits are applicable to running awards. Where the award has been suspended, and it is determined that no additional payments are in order, the award will be discontinued effective date of last payment. (d) Severance of service connection. Subject to the limitations contained in §§3.114 and 3.957, service connection will be severed only where evidence establishes that it is clearly and unmistakably erroneous (the burden of proof being upon the Government). (Where service connection is severed because of a change in or interpretation of a law or Department of Veterans Affairs issue, the provisions of §3.114 are for application.) A change in diagnosis may be accepted as a basis for severance action if the examining physician or physicians or other proper medical authority certifies that, in the light of all accumulated evidence, the diagnosis on which service connection was predicated is clearly erroneous. This certification must be accompanied by a summary of the facts, findings, and reasons supporting the conclusion. When severance of service connection is considered warranted, a rating proposing severance will be prepared setting forth all material facts and reasons. The claimant will be notified at his or her latest address of record of the contemplated action and furnished detailed reasons therefor and will be given 60 days for the presentation of additional evidence to show that service connection should be maintained. Unless otherwise provided in paragraph (i) of this section, if additional evidence is not received within that period, final rating action will be taken and the award will be reduced or discontinued, if in order, effective the last day of the month in which a 60-day period from the date of notice to the beneficiary of the final rating action expires. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5112(b)(6)) I don't see anywhere in here where a half-assed C&P exam, that forfeited many sections of the DBQ, qualifies as "clearly and unmistakably erroneous" evidence. The VA certified my proposition based off an erroneous and incomplete C&P exam. Also, (d) states: "A change in diagnosis may be accepted as a basis for severance action if the examining physician or physicians or other proper medical authority certifies that, in the light of all accumulated evidence, the diagnosis on which service connection was predicated is clearly erroneous." It says, "...may..." not "...must..." The more I keep searching (without knowing their full reasoning) the more I'm finding and believing that I'm being harassed by the VA.

Also, the 10 year rule may be why they're trying to push it through so fast. Maybe they're hoping I'll go away again...

right, but unless this mysterious "change in law, or interpretation of the law, or VA issue" trumps that regulation (which I'd like to see the rule on that too). I'll be asking my VSO all these questions. I'm trying to wrap my head around what the heck this all is.

Every VA C&P examiner has screwed me over-royally. Despite the evidence, both in my SMRs and Private Treatment Records, they've tried to mess me over. Even the BVA judge could figure out why I was sitting in front of him. I wouldn't mind trying a farmed out C&P exam from a private company. It couldn't go worse than what the VA has done to me. In 2015 the judge granted SC on all my issues, effective from 2008.