My So Say's One Thing And Hadit Experts Say Another.

[jecsb4]

Happy Veterans day to all Vets and Family and Friends of Vets,

Ok, My claim is being re-looked at per my request at the RO level. I guess they didn't like the additional evidence the VA Dr. wrote for my claim (Non C & P Exam) and they sent me to a C & P conducted by a private Dr. contracted by the VA. This Dr was only a general practice Dr.

From what I can tell, everyone here at Hadit say's to get a copy of the C & P. I went to my SO and asked about this and he said that would delay the claim.

I filled out the VACC requesting the full 60 days so I could submitt additional evidence, and I only have about two weeks left. I am waiting on a Dr. to write up a favorable IMO for me and I am cutting it close to the wire, but I should get it just before the 60 day timeframe.

Since I didn't request the civilain C & P via the Freedom of Info Act, I don't know what that contracted Dr. wrote and even if I requested it now, I would get it to late to counteract and issues in my apppeal.

I guess I don't understand why the SO would say not to bother with getting the C & P?

Thanks.

[LarryJ]

Hey, how's the cowgirl this mornin?

It means "service connection"....it's all a "special code" talk only used by the VA in cases where they want to obscure any and all "veterans" from knowing what is going on with their claims.

Works purty good, don't it?

Someone, somewhere on the hadit board has broken down the "lingo"-----"at least as likely as not" equals a 50/50 chance that your injury/illness was due to your service...and, according to the VA's own rules if it is 50/50.....then the decision must go in the veteran's favor.

[Capt.]

Hello, I would like to offer that the VA doctors may agree that you are ill, sick, injured, but trying to get them to use "it is as least as likely as not" on a nexis, opinion is almost impossible. I have 2 IMOs that specifically say these phrases as they are proven to be accepted by the VA in past court cases. To succeed with a claim if you do not have this phrase your case is almost surely doomed to the remand or denial pile. The VA doctors I tried to get to write these nexis opinions with the "court accepted phrase" would not do it. Though they did agree that my diseases are from the chemicals I have documented and have written this into their notes which I have and the VA has it is still all about legal phraseology. Yes , I do agree that if you have IMO's that do use the phrase..."as least as likely as not" and VA doctors that don't use the phrase, you will get alittle bit of evidentiary acceptance by the Judge or BVA from the VA doctors, but point is the VA doctors are instructed not to get backed into a corner with this. The IMO's with the phrase will be the accepted evidence used to swing the proponderance of evidence to the vets side and the 38 CFR rule 38.3.102 Reasonable Doubt Rule should always be used to point this out to the VA and can later be used against the VA or VARO if it goes before a BVA or Judge. If a court hears that you pointed out the reasonable doubt and the VARO ruled against you, especially with IMOs and evidence that show the presumptive or direct cause then this will show the VARO did NOT take into effect the Rule and the court should rule on that issue as neglect on the VARO. This is just my opinion from all of the BVA cases I have reviewed and from the claims that were successful. There is a specific route or pattern to get SC or to be successful in appeals process. I am currently awaiting a decision and am quite confident that I will be SC and a favorable ruling. I have not been to a C and P exam and whether he is competent or not I am prepared to appeal his decision and move on with the process. C and P usually rule against the Vet from what I have seen and heard of and have read in the statistics. It usually means more waiting time if the C and P examiner rules against the Vet. I am not going to worry over it one way or the other as this usually is done as you stated by a Doctor the VA has on contract and hardly ever is one that specializes in that field. That in itself is reason for appeal. Anyway I would say that Reasonable Doubt rule and as least as likely as not are 2 weapons the court usually raises the white flag over when fire in their direction. Good Bless, Bill

[Wings]

Hello, I would like to offer that the VA doctors may agree that you are ill, sick, injured, but trying to get them to use "at least as likely as not" on a nexis, opinion is almost impossible.

I have 2 IMOs that specifically say these phrases as they are proven to be accepted by the VA in past court cases. To succeed with a claim if you do not have this phrase your case is almost surely doomed to the remand or denial pile. The VA doctors I tried to get to write these nexis opinions with the "court accepted phrase" would not do it. Though they did agree that my diseases are from the chemicals I have documented and have written this into their notes which I have and the VA has it is still all about legal phraseology. Yes , I do agree that if you have IMO's that do use the phrase..."at least as likely as not" and VA doctors that don't use the phrase, you will get alittle bit of evidentiary acceptance by the Judge or BVA from the VA doctors, but point is the VA doctors are instructed not to get backed into a corner with this. The IMO's with the phrase will be the accepted evidence used to swing the proponderance of evidence to the vets side and the 38 CFR rule 38.3.102 Reasonable Doubt Rule should always be used to point this out to the VA and can later be used against the VA or VARO if it goes before a BVA or Judge. If a court hears that you pointed out the reasonable doubt and the VARO ruled against you, especially with IMOs and evidence that show the presumptive or direct cause then this will show the VARO did NOT take into effect the Rule and the court should rule on that issue as neglect on the VARO. This is just my opinion from all of the BVA cases I have reviewed and from the claims that were successful. There is a specific route or pattern to get SC or to be successful in appeals process. I am currently awaiting a decision and am quite confident that I will be SC and a favorable ruling. I have not been to a C and P exam and whether he is competent or not I am prepared to appeal his decision and move on with the process. C and P usually rule against the Vet from what I have seen and heard of and have read in the statistics. It usually means more waiting time if the C and P examiner rules against the Vet. I am not going to worry over it one way or the other as this usually is done as you stated by a Doctor the VA has on contract and hardly ever is one that specializes in that field. That in itself is reason for appeal. Anyway I would say that Reasonable Doubt rule and as least as likely as not are 2 weapons the court usually raises the white flag over when fire in their direction. Good Bless, Bill

Good post Bill! ~Wings

How much proof do I need on a claim?

VA law requires "as likely as not." Doctors are used to stating opinions to a medical certainty. That is a much higher burden of proof. Show your doctor the following chart. It may help.

continunum of causation-- burdens of proof

standard ---------- how much --------- context

as likely as not ---------at least 50% ------- verteran claims

more likely as not---------- more than 50%-----civil trials

clear and convincing------ about 75% ----civil juvenile court

to a medical certainty===about 80%------ court doctor opinion

beyond a reasonable doubt----- about 90%----criminal trials

beyond a shadow of a doubt-----100%------ignorant doctors

How do I give an opinion for nexus (relationship to a military incident?

When asked to give an opinion as to whether a condition is related to a specific incident during military service, the opinion should be expressed as follows:

1. “is due to” (100% sure)

2. “more likely than not” (greater than 50%)

3. “at least as likely as not” (equal to or greater than 50%)

4. “not at least as likely as not” (less than 50%)

5. “is not due to” (0%)"

[LarryJ]

Well, Bill, I guess that I have been fortunate in the fact that, in three different C&P's, that the examining VA practitioners have, all three, used the terminology "at least as likely".

[cowgirl]

Hollers M'ornin, thanks Larry, Bill (good info) and Wings for clarifying the 'lingo' once again. Just doesn't mean I gotta' like the phraseology, unless its in our favor! cg with coffee grounds&water

Hey, how's the cowgirl this mornin?

It means "service connection"....it's all a "special code" talk only used by the VA in cases where they want to obscure any and all "veterans" from knowing what is going on with their claims.

Works purty good, don't it?

Someone, somewhere on the hadit board has broken down the "lingo"-----"at least as likely as not" equals a 50/50 chance that your injury/illness was due to your service...and, according to the VA's own rules if it is 50/50.....then the decision must go in the veteran's favor.

[Capt.]

Hello Cowgirl,Wings LarryJ, Larry , I wish I had your doctors from the VA. I have not heard many success stories as yours concerning VA nexis and I am happy you have gotten the cooperation from those VA doctors, but it is certaninly not the norm. I think it should be though without all of the VA and the Dept. of Justice lawyers they use with the legal typology and wording. I have talked to one of the Neurologist handling my test and he also refused to word it like that. Even though the test were all positive. Wings , thank you for that chart. I have seen it but could not find it ....where can I get a copy or go to the site to download that. I hope you get this thing straightened out Cowgirl... don't give up. God Bless , Bill