Jump to content

2NDMARDIVDOC

Second Class Petty Officers
  • Content Count

    88
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 2NDMARDIVDOC

  1. If I have to refill the CUE will it have to through a lengthy appeal or can I do something like a FDC on it?
  2. Berta, I will do my best to answer your questions. The re-open and CUE were filed at the same time on the same piece of paper. I cannot attach the re-open decision because I don't have it yet. I just found out the condition was granted an hour ago. It was awarded at 60%. The CUE would have taken it back to Dec of 2001. I filed the re-open / CUE on Nov 10th 2016. The effective date of the award is the November date. There is no mention whatsoever on ebenefits regarding the status of the CUE. hopefully that clarifies my post. Do you think the CUE is dead or could it still be granted even though the claim is now listed as closed?
  3. So just moments ago I found out I was awarded my claim. The effective date however is 11-10-16 I had filed a re-open / CUE on that condition that should have taken it back to 2001. I am seeing the effective date on ebenefits disability summery page. Is there still a chance that the CUE retro money is still alive out there somewhere or do you think I was only awarded back to November of last year when I re-filed the claim??
  4. So as many of you know who's been following my posts, I have a high dollar claim in processing. Today I see that it is "prep for notification" It's been along time coming. Back in 01 when I discharged I filed for several conditions including a diagnosed case of overactive bladder. Some of the items were granted and some denied. The bladder condition was denied. I was still very green to the claims process back then and as a result, I didn't do a NOD on the bladder, I just accepted the denial. The thing is, while I was in service, I was diagnosed by a Urologist with overactive bladder and was placed on meds. I went through several diagnostic studies to see if it was a symptom of something else and nothing was found. Therefore the overactive bladder was considered the diagnoses and coded as such. I was placed on meds and that was the end of it. On my denial letter for the bladder the rater noted the diagnosed condition, recognized the need for meds and noted that there was no underlying cause of the condition. To the best of my memory I was never even given a C&P exam for the claimed condition, just a flat out denial. The confusing thing about the denial is that even though the rater recognized all those things I just mentioned, they never mentioned any evidence to the contrary and said that the "preponderance of evidence wasn't in my favor" So fast forward to November of 2016, I was talking to a DAV rep about it and he felt pretty strongly that a CUE had occurred. Especially since I still suffer from the condition and still take meds. He suggested I gather all my records both current and service and file a re-open / CUE. So that's what I did. I filed FDC for the bladder. I included all my medical notes as well as a couple nexus letters from different Dr's. I was scheduled for a C&P in January of this year. The exam went very much in my favor to the tune of a 60% rating according to the DBQ and the examiner provided a medical opinion that the current condition is the same as the one I claimed back in 01 based on my SMR's. A week or so later, the RO requested another medical opinion as to weather or not the overactive bladder was a symptom or actual diagnoses. I was pissed because they already had that info in triplicate. Anyway, the 2nd MO came back as noting the condition was the primary diagnoses and was NOT a symptom of anything else and again stated that it was the same condition as claimed in service back in 01. So do you guys and ladies think based on what I've told you here that a CUE occurred and do you think I should be expecting a retro payment?
  5. Berta, I agree with you but what I am trying to explain here is that the mountain of evidence I have provided, including the opinion of the CP examiner if that it is NOT a secondary condition, it is the PRIMARY condition. I have had multiple diagnostic testing to see if it is being caused by something else and every test I've had is normal. Every doctor that ever been involved has documented that it is NOT related to anything else. The VA has all of this evidence already. Why would they be asking for something that already have in duplicate?
  6. Many of you have seen my prior posts regarding my "bladder condition" claim. Here is the latest news. Please tell me your thoughts. The brief history is that in November of 2016 my VSO filed a CUE / re-open on a bladder claim that was denied back in 02. The original claim showed a condition that was diagnosed in service as "overactive bladder" what's important to understand here is that the overactive bladder WAS NOT LINKED TO ANY OTHER CONDITION. It was a stand alone diagnosis. I was treated in service and placed on meds. The original denial stated that the " preponderance evidence was not in my favor" Please also know that there was absolutely no conflicting evidence or opinion to that diagnoses, and to the best of my memory, I was never given a CP exam for that claimed condition back in 02. I never filed a NOD on that denial because at that time, I didn't know any better. Fast forward to November of 2016, my VSO filed the CUE / re-open with new and material evidence. I was scheduled for a CP exam for the overactive bladder and it was scored VERY much in my favor. The examiner confirmed the diagnoses of "overactive bladder" She also linked it to an in-service condition based on the military medical records I provided. I also submitted another nexus letter form a different doctor stating the same thing. Every single doctor, including my urologists have documented the diagnoses as "overactive bladder" I received a notice the other day that the claim had been deferred for a medical opinion. I inquired through the IRIS system and the response I received was that the rater wanted clarification from the examiner as to whether the overactive bladder was a primary condition or a symptom of something else. Right about then is where I totally lost it. Like I said, EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT I PROVIDED THE VA STATED IT WAS A PRIMARY DIAGNOSES AS WELL AS THE C&P EXAMINER'S REPORT STATING THE EXACT SAME THING. What are they trying to do to me?? Why are they not using the evidence that is right in front of them including their own damn examiners diagnoses? Any thoughts, advice etc. would be greatly appreciated.
  7. this is really getting old. So my bladder condition I found out was deferred for a "medical opinion" based on the inquiry system that I sent my deferred question to today. I really need help understanding this! My CP exam was totally in my favor and the examiner gave her opinion as being "more likely than not" I also provided 2 different nexus statements from doctors saying the same thing. I also provided my military medical records showing treatment in service for the condition as well as current records... what in the hell could they possibly be looking for another medical opinion for?
  8. Thanks Berta. I looked further into the deferred item and on ebenefits there is a tab that says "needed from others" I clicked on it and all it says <VA medical center> That's it, nothing else.... The laughable part is that below that, it says that I can provide the requested documents to speed the process up..... There is NOTHING that shows what they are even asking for? How can I provide something when they aren't saying what it is??? All that's there is <VA medical center> I've already had a C&P exam which like I said was very much in my favor and 2 nexus letters from different Doctors stating it was present in my active duty and military medical records to prove it. Im totally lost as to what they could be asking for in addition to what I've already submitted??
  9. So I find out today that my claim has a deferred item. I filed for a bladder condition and shoulder condition. My shoulder was granted 20% and my bladder issue was deferred. I really don't understand that. I submitted a ton of evidence as well as 2 nexus letters from 2 different doctors. My bladder CP exam was very much in my favor. The examiner also opined that the bladder was service connected. The only hiccup is that the bladder claim was filed as a reopen / CUE from a denial back in 02. Could a large retro be holding it up? Any thoughts?
  10. My claim has been sitting in the preparation for decision for 30 days now. My patience is wearing thin. I provided very clear evidence and my CP exams were pretty strongly in my favor. What the heck are they waiting on? I only claimed 2 conditions. One of them has the potential to have a lot of retro... a lot. Could that be the hold up? If the retro was awarded woul this be the stage it gets stalled in?
  11. Bronco, based on what you read on my denial for the bladder condition and what I've said about it in my posts, do you see a possible CUE?
  12. Bronco... the issue is the bladder condition not the foot condition. Thanks. This is the best I could do with providing you with the original denial from 02. I cannot scan or do I just took a pic of the letter. Please let me know if you can't read it and I'll try something else. Thanks.
  13. This is the best I could do with providing you with the original denial from 02. I cannot scan or do I just took a pic of the letter. Please let me know if you can't read it and I'll try something else. Thanks.
  14. pwrslm, Thank you! I will try and scan the denial letter for your review. I do remember that the rater did in fact mention in the write up as well as the "evidenced used" the urology records from the Urologist stating dates etc.. They also noted the diagnostic tests I underwent. They also mentioned that my primary care tested me for all conditions that could explain a over active bladder and could not find a primary cause. Since no other cause could be found, I was given a dx of a primary over active bladder which was a ratable condition back then and still is. The only clear reason for denial according to the letter was that my discharge physical said it wasn't debilitating and therefore service connection was denied.
  15. Thanks. The only issue pwrslm is that I submitted that claim the day I officially discharged. The Urologist never gave an "opinion" I just submitted his records. It was the discharging doctor (general practice) that said it wasn't debilitating. Does that make a difference?
  16. Any chance you are looking at the right shoulder and not the left? The left shoulder is the one being claimed. My ROM was nill. I literally moved in 5 inches in any given direction and the examiner even commented on the lack of ROM.
  17. Please explain why you think that? I literally did not move my arm more than 5 inches in any given direction.
  18. I will do my best to try to scan and upload the denial decision. It's not online so I cannot just copy and paste. I only have the hard copy. In a nut shell this is what I believe happened.... I claimed the condition that started in service and was dx by a Urologist. and I was put on continuous meds to control the issue. On my discharge physical the separation physical which was performed by a different Dr listed it as a medical problem but then in little letters next to the listed condition the Dr wrote "ncd" I had no idea what that meant, I though it was the Dr's initials or something. It wasn't until a couple months ago that it meant "not considered disabling" To the best of my recollection, I was never given a C&P exam on that condition. When I read the denial a little closer a few months ago the rater said the denial was because the "Dr. considers the condition to not be disabling" Meaning the separation physical Dr which again was NOT the Dr. that dx me with the condition. The dx'ing Dr. was a urologist and the separation exam Dr. was just general practice. I believe the VA made an error by not affording me a C&P exam on a claimed, confirmed condition because of the "ncd" on the discharge physical. I have struggled with this issue since discharge and I am still taking meds for it. It had been well documented in my VA records through the years.
  19. Ok..Here's report. Its a long one.... Thanks! Please note that this is for a SECONDARY claim condition and the examiner also offered an opinion that the condition is "as likely as not" to be related to my already SC right shoulder. 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 ------------ a. List the claimed condition(s) that pertain to this DBQ: Left shoulder condition b. Select diagnoses associated with the claimed condition(s) (check all that apply): [X] Labral tear, including SLAP (Superior labral anterior-posterior lesion) Side affected: [ ] Right [X] Left [ ] Both ICD Code: M75.102 Date of diagnosis: Left 9/14/2016 [X] Acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis Side affected: [ ] Right [X] Left [ ] Both ICD Code: M19.019 Date of diagnosis: Left 8/23/2016 c. Comments, if any: No response provided d. Was an opinion requested about this condition? [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] N/A 2. Medical history ------------------ a. Describe the history (including onset and course) of the Veteran's shoulder or arm condition (brief summary): This Veteran is a 42 y/o MALE with complaint of Left shoulder pain x 2 years, severe for 8 months. The Veteran states he is Right hand dominant. He states he believes the left shoulder pain was caused by overuse due to Right shoulder incapacity after injury in 1998. Right shoulder is service connected, had surgery distal clavicle resection on Right shoulder 1999, no strength since and instability with pain. The Veteran states his Left shoulder pain begins anterior and superior on the point of the shoulder tends to radiate to the back of the shoulder radiates down the deltoid area. He denies a specific in service injury. He states he was a weight lifter and stopped lifting after he injured his right shoulder in 1998 while doing 8-count body builders for physical training. Currently he is on 10/325 mg hydrocodone APAP and Motrin 800 mg. He states he has not been able to begin physical therpay due to the Left shoulder pain. He currently works in an administration position. He denies work requiring repetitive overhead activities. He states he uses a TENS unit daily. *************************************************************************** **** At the time of this interview, documentation of history, severity and frequency of reported symptoms has been reviewed with the veteran for accuracy and verified by the veteran as correct prior to veteran's departure. The veteran was permitted as much time as he needed to include whatever additional information he wished, and he voiced any other problems or concerns that were not addressed no concerns or complaints about the exam. The veteran denied having any other problems or concerns that were not addressed in this evaluation. b. Dominant hand: [X] Right [ ] Left [ ] Ambidextrous c. Does the Veteran report flare-ups of the shoulder or arm? [ ] Yes [X] No d. Does the Veteran report having any functional loss or functional impairment of the joint or extremity being evaluated on this DBQ (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: less motion, more pain 3. Range of motion (ROM) and functional limitation -------------------------------------------------- a. Initial range of motion Right Shoulder -------------- [X] All Normal [ ] Abnormal or outside of normal range [ ] Unable to test (please explain) [ ] Not indicated (please explain) Flexion (0 to 180): 0 to 180 degrees Abduction (0 to 180): 0 to 180 degrees External rotation (0 to 90): 0 to 90 degrees Internal rotation (0 to 90): 0 to 90 degrees Description of pain (select best response): No pain noted on exam Is there evidence of pain with weight bearing? [ ] Yes [X] No Is there objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joint or associated soft tissue? [ ] Yes [X] No Is there objective evidence of crepitus? [ ] Yes [X] No Left Shoulder ------------- [ ] All Normal [X] Abnormal or outside of normal range [ ] Unable to test (please explain) [ ] Not indicated (please explain) Flexion (0 to 180): 0 to 140 degrees Abduction (0 to 180): 0 to 110 degrees External rotation (0 to 90): 0 to 70 degrees Internal rotation (0 to 90): 0 to 60 degrees If abnormal, does the range of motion itself contribute to functional loss? [X] Yes (please explain) [ ] No If yes, please explain: decreased rom Description of pain (select best response): Pain noted on exam and causes functional loss If noted on exam, which ROM exhibited pain (select all that apply)? Flexion, Abduction, External rotation, Internal rotation Is there evidence of pain with weight bearing? [ ] Yes [X] No Is there objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joint or associated soft tissue? [ ] Yes [X] No Is there objective evidence of crepitus? [ ] Yes [X] No b. Observed repetitive use Right Shoulder -------------- Is the Veteran able to perform repetitive use testing with at least three repetitions? [X] Yes [ ] No Is there additional functional loss or range of motion after three repetitions? [ ] Yes [X] No Left Shoulder ------------- Is the Veteran able to perform repetitive use testing with at least three repetitions? [X] Yes [ ] No Is there additional functional loss or range of motion after three repetitions? [ ] Yes [X] No c. Repeated use over time Right Shoulder -------------- 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 [ ] No [X] Unable to say w/o mere speculation If unable to say w/o mere speculation, please explain: As the joint is repeatedly used over a period of time, such an opinion is not feasible and cannot As for an opinion for Pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination when be provided without resorting to mere speculation. Any decrease in ROM with repeated use over time is merely speculative and highly subjective (on the veteran's word alone) as neither this medical provider nor any other medical provider is present to objectively and repetitively measure (with a goniometer) the change in ROM with repeated use over time. And the veteran denies objectively and repetitively measuring (with a goniometer) ROM with repeated use over time. Left Shoulder ------------- 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 [ ] No [X] Unable to say w/o mere speculation If unable to say w/o mere speculation, please explain: As the joint is repeatedly used over a period of time, such an opinion is not feasible and cannot As for an opinion for Pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination when be provided without resorting to mere speculation. Any decrease in ROM with repeated use over time is merely speculative and highly subjective (on the veteran's word alone) as neither this medical provider nor any other medical provider is present to objectively and repetitively measure (with a goniometer) the change in ROM with repeated use over time. And the veteran denies objectively and repetitively measuring (with a goniometer) ROM with repeated use over time. d. Flare-ups: Not applicable e. Additional factors contributing to disability Right Shoulder -------------- In addition to those addressed above, are there additional contributing factors of disability? Please select all that apply and describe: None Left Shoulder ------------- In addition to those addressed above, are there additional contributing factors of disability? Please select all that apply and describe: None 4. Muscle strength testing -------------------------- a. Muscle strength - 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 Right Shoulder: Rate Strength: Forward flexion: 5/5 Abduction: 5/5 Is there a reduction in muscle strength? [ ] Yes [X] No Left Shoulder: Rate Strength: Forward flexion: 4/5 Abduction: 4/5 Is there a reduction in muscle strength? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, is the reduction entirely due to the claimed condition in the Diagnosis Section? [X] Yes [ ] No b. Does the Veteran have muscle atrophy? [ ] Yes [X] No c. Comments, if any: No response provided 5. Ankylosis ------------ Complete this section if the Veteran has ankylosis of scapulohumeral (glenohumeral) articulation (shoulder joint) (i.e., the scapula and humerus move as one piece). a. Indicate severity of ankylosis and side affected (check all that apply): Right side: [ ] Ankylosis in abduction up to 60 degrees; can reach mouth and head (Favorable ankylosis) [ ] Ankylosis in abduction between favorable and unfavorable (Intermediate ankylosis) [ ] Ankylosis in abduction at 25 degrees or less from side (Unfavorable ankylosis) [X] No ankylosis Left side: [ ] Ankylosis in abduction up to 60 degrees; can reach mouth and head (Favorable ankylosis) [ ] Ankylosis in abduction between favorable and unfavorable (Intermediate ankylosis) [ ] Ankylosis in abduction at 25 degrees or less from side (Unfavorable ankylosis) [X] No ankylosis b. Comments, if any: No response provided 6. Rotator cuff conditions -------------------------- Is rotator cuff condition suspected? Right Shoulder: [ ] Yes [X] No Left Shoulder: [X] Yes [ ] No If "Yes" complete the following: Hawkins' Impingement Test (Forward flex the arm to 90 degrees with the elbow bent to 90 degrees. Internally rotate arm. Pain on internal rotation indicates a positive test; may signify rotator cuff tendinopathy or tear.) [X] Positive [ ] Negative [ ] Unable to perform [ ] N/A Empty-can Test (Abduct arm to 90 degrees and forward flex 30 degrees. Patient turns thumbs down and resists downward force applied by the examiner. Weakness indicates a positive test; may indicate rotator cuff pathology, including supraspinatus tendinopathy or tear.) [X] Positive [ ] Negative [ ] Unable to perform [ ] N/A External Rotation/ Infraspinatus Strength Test (Patient holds arms at side with elbow flexed 90 degrees. Patient externally rotates against resistance. Weakness indicates a positive test; may be associated with infraspinatus tendinopathy or tear.) [X] Positive [ ] Negative [ ] Unable to perform [ ] N/A Lift-off Subscapularis Test (Patient internally rotates arm behind lower back, pushes against examiner's hand. Weakness indicates a positive test; may indicate subscapularis tendinopathy or tear.) [X] Positive [ ] Negative [ ] Unable to perform [ ] N/A 7. Shoulder instability, dislocation or labral pathology -------------------------------------------------------- a. Is shoulder instability, dislocation or labral pathology suspected? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, complete questions 7b - 7d below: b. Is there a history of mechanical symptoms (clicking, catching, etc.)? [ ] Yes [X] No c. Is there a history of recurrent dislocation (subluxation) of the glenohumeral (scapulohumeral) joint? [ ] Yes [X] No d. Crank apprehension and relocation test (with patient supine, abduct patient's arm to 90 degrees and flex elbow 90 degrees. Pain and sense of instability with further external rotation may indicate shoulder instability.) [X] Positive [ ] Negative [ ] Unable to perform [ ] N/A If positive, indicate side affected: [ ] Right [X] Left [ ] Both 8. Clavicle, scapula, acromioclavicular (AC) joint and sternoclavicular joint conditions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ a. Is a clavicle, scapula, acromioclavicular (AC) joint or sternoclavicular joint condition suspected? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, complete questions 8b, 8d and 8e below: b. Does the Veteran have an AC joint condition or any other impairment of the clavicle or scapula? [ ] Yes [X] No c. Does the clavicle or scapula condition affect range of motion of the shoulder (glenohumeral) joint? No response provided d. Is there tenderness on palpation of the AC joint? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, indicate side: [ ] Right [X] Left [ ] Both e. Cross-body adduction test (Passively adduct arm across the patient's body toward the contralateral shoulder. Pain may indicate acromioclavicular joint pathology.) [X] Positive [ ] Negative [ ] Unable to perform [ ] N/A If positive, side affected: [ ] Right [X] Left [ ] Both 9. Conditions or impairments of the humerus ------------------------------------------- a. Does the Veteran have loss of head (flail shoulder), nonunion (false flail shoulder), or fibrous union of the humerus? [ ] Yes [X] No b. Does the Veteran have malunion of the humerus with moderate or marked deformity? [ ] Yes [X] No c. Does the humerus condition affect range of motion of the shoulder (glenohumeral) joint? No response provided d. Comments, if any: No response provided 10. Surgical procedures ----------------------- Indicate any surgical procedures that the Veteran has had performed and provide the additional information as requested (check all that apply): Right side: [X] Arthroscopic or other shoulder surgery Type of surgery: Distal clavicle resection Date of surgery: 1999 11. 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? [ ] Yes [X] No 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 12. Assistive devices --------------------- a. Does the Veteran use any assistive devices? [ ] 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 the Veteran's shoulder and/or arm conditions, 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., while functions for the lower extremity include balance and propulsion, etc.) [ ] Yes, functioning is so diminished that amputation with prosthesis would equally serve the Veteran. [X] No 14. Diagnostic testing ---------------------- a. Have imaging studies of the shoulder been performed and are the results available? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, is degenerative or traumatic arthritis documented? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, indicate shoulder: [ ] Right [X] Left [ ] Both b. Are there any other significant diagnostic test findings or results? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, provide type of test or procedure, date and results (brief summary): 08/23/2016 SHOULDER (LEFT) 2 OR MORE VIEWS Impression: Mild degenerative arthritis of the a.c. joint. The shoulder joint appears normal. The soft tissues are unremarkable. 09/14/2016 MRI SHOULDER W/O CONTRAST Impression: Suspect a small partial-thickness articular surface tear of the infraspinatus tendon at the footplate with an associated small interstitial/intrasubstance tear extending into the myotendinous junction. Inferior and posterior inferior labral tear. Abnormal signal within the superior labrum which may be related to degeneration or possibly a tear. Moderate a.c. joint degenerative changes which mildly narrows the supraspinatus outlet. c. If any test results are other than normal, indicate relationship of abnormal findings to diagnosed conditions: Left shoulder pain with osteoarthritis and suprspinatous tear. 15. Functional impact --------------------- Regardless of the Veteran's current employment status, do the condition(s) listed in the Diagnosis Section impact his or her ability to perform any type of occupational task (such as standing, walking, lifting, sitting, etc.)? [X] Yes [ ] No If yes, describe the impact of each of the Veteran's shoulder conditions providing one or more examples: Difficulty with overhead activities or prolonged use of the left arm/shoulder. No sedentary restrictions. 16. Remarks, if any: -------------------- The purpose of Passive ROM (aided by another) is to help maintain flexibility and mobility at the joint being evaluated to reduce stiffness. Passive ROM involves no muscle work and the extent of the stretch is determined by how much the muscles involved will elongate. It is the medical examiner and not the Veteran performing this motion and the potential for harm to the joint and surrounding soft tissue far outweighs the benefits of passively manipulating the joint to its maximum point merely for the purpose of measuring movement of the joint for non-therapeutic or treatment purposes. The medical provider may inadvertently move the joint past the tolerable point of pain and could potentially cause harm to said joint. Per current medical literature (DORLANDS MEDICAL DICTIONARY, NETTERS ATLAS OF HUMAN ANATOMY, WHEELESS' TEXTBOOK OF ORTHOPAEDICS), the function of one human joint is unequivocally independent of the identical contralateral joint in respects to muscular, skeletal and neurologic anatomy. Comparing one joint to its identical contralateral side is of little relevance and the potential for harm/injury far outweighs the benefits. Therefore b/l Passive ROM is not performed on today's examination. Weight Bearing ROM of a joint has known inherent risks that could potentially cause harm/injury to an individual. For instance, many aspects of balance (including but not limited to structural, mechanical, neurological, psychological, age and medication use) need to be taken into consideration to assess for and prevent risk of fall, and these risks do not solely rely on the function of any individual joint. Per current medical literature (DORLANDS MEDICAL DICTIONARY, NETTERS ATLAS OF HUMAN ANATOMY, WHEELESS' TEXTBOOK OF ORTHOPAEDICS), the function of one human joint is unequivocally independent of the identical contralateral joint in respects to muscular, skeletal and neurologic anatomy. Comparing one joint to its identical contralateral side has varying outcomes (e.g. surgical intervention, underlying defects or prior injury to the contralateral side) which may influence ROM outcome in respect to Passive vs Wt Bearing vs Active and the potential for harm/injury to the individual far outweighs the benefits. Therefore b/l Weight Bearing ROM is not performed on today's examination.
  20. I'll try to keep this short. Just looking for opinions and info. I currently have a claim in the pending decision phase. My VSO filed it as a CUE / reopen. That is exactly the wording on the claim application. The claim is for a condition that was denied back in 02. I NEVER DISPUTED the denial until 2 months ago. I submitted both new evidence as well as evidence that existed back then which I am arguing they didn't look at. So here is my question. In the event the CUE is denied, yet the condition gets service connected, is there a way to request the VA retro pays back to 2001 when I originally filed for the condition?
  21. Can you tell me what this means, I’ve never seen it. I have an update on ebenefits that’s in addition to my current claim for bladder and shoulder, that says (eligibility determination) estimated completion of 02/03/2020 – 05/25/23 Any idea what that means? I’ve been 70% ever since registering at the VA back in 02. I’ve never had an eligibility issue. The pending claims I have awaiting a decision could possibly put me at 100% Could that be the reason for the audit? Below is a copy and paste of what my ebenefits says. Status of Your Claim Under Review Submitted: 01/06/2017 (Eligibility Determination) Estimated Completion: 02/03/2020 - 05/25/2023 Estimated Completion Info Tooltip with additional information Disabilities Claimed: request for audit (New) Representative for VA Claims: DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS Current Status: Under Review Current Status Info Tooltip with additional information
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines