diabetes Dro Hearing Monday

[MRRRR5]

QUOTE (Berta @ Aug 12 2008, 08:24 AM) Is the PN secondary to diabetes due to AO?

De Novo- boy did I raise hell when I got a verbatim de novo review SOC-

I then got a conference set with my rep and the DRO from the VSM -I asked her to CUE the decision-it is against VA regs to get copy and paste de novos-

I feel a De Novo-when it is handled properly per the DRO regs in 38 CFR and M21-1- means one more pair of eyes -and thus one more chance to get the evidence read.

"Got letter today that hearing is next month. After reviewing 2006 C&P from this that they used to initially deny SC, I notice VA doctor stated that that "there was no C-file to review". Wasn't this supposed to be available for examiner to review which they would had seen the issues from the previous EMG/NCV study and on-going problems/treatment?"

Right- they should have had the records and reviewed them- this is a good point to raise at the hearing-

I have seen Independent Medical Opinions at the BVA web site were found to have much more weight than VA C & P opinions when the IMO doctor had access to all of the clinical records and referred to them in their opinions.

[Berta]

That sounds good-

but it has been a while -I forget the claim's basis-

PN claimed as due to AO exposure and not secondary to AO DMII will be very hard to prove-

This is the only claim award I am aware of for PN due to AO but not secondary to DMII:

Citation Nr: 0606156 Decision Date: 03/03/06 Archive Date: 03/14/06

DOCKET NO. 04-19 301 )

It should be easy to find at the BVA web site-

the vet had an excellent independent med opinion that ruled out any other etiology but AO for this vet's PN.

The VA messed up when they did not access all of your records for the C & P -I raised this issue too in my claim- they sent the med recs here for a C & P exam for a vet who has been dead over a decade now-th VA examiner used 3-4 med recs that she had faxed to her in Buffalo-and didnt even know the VA had malpracticed and there had been a FTCA award and Sec 1151 award to me already-

my IMO doc pounced on her deficient report.

The Court has held that improper C & Ps like this are prejudicial errors.

Maybe yur vet rep learned something.

[john999]

PN solely based on AO exposure is Catch 22. You have to manifestit within one year of exposure and it has to resolve itself within two years. How can you file a claim on something that has resolved itself? Mabye like Malaria just because you have it at all you get a percentage....I don't know.

[MRRRR5]

The PN is not due to AO.

I hope my Vet rep will get some positive results from the DRO, but I wont hold my breath.

Thanks for all the responses.

[john999]

The hearing is the best chance since at least you won't get cookie cutter De Novo Review. I think they have an assembly line and produce those De Novo reviews the next day after your decision. At the VA you have to throw a monkey wrench into the works to slow it down or stop it to have your claim heard. Jim Strickland from VAwatchdog says the VARO's do 5-6 claims a day. I bet they do the same number of De Novo Rreviews. You get the review that is word for word the same as your decision. Something is fishy.

[MRRRR5]

The PN is not due to AO.

I hope my Vet rep will get some positive results from the DRO, but I wont hold my breath.

Thanks for all the responses.

Update; had DRO hearing today. Prior to hearing, Vet rep stated that he spoke with DRO and DRO said that my claim was "initially" denied because the C&P doc said I didn't have any pain in my foot at that time, otherwise, it would have been SC'ed. He also said that DRO reviewed my additional medical evidence recently submitted and said that it was valid medical information in support of my claim, however, it was not in "VA language" such as "diagnosis from 2004 is confirmed and treatment continues for this (mild, moderate, moderate severe, severe) condition" and I will most likely be scheduled for another c&p since I stated in my NOD that the c&p doc did not acurately list my response nor had my SMR to review. Vet rep also said that I should have no problem once the c&p is complete getting this SC.

Anyway, in the DRO hearing, the DRO stated that he reviewed the additional medical evidence and said that I will get another c&p because, although I have good supporting medical evidence, it is "not written in the language that VA uses" and to make sure I report for this c&p exam. Just to make sure it was in the record and on the recording (since it was being taped by the VA DRO....and me ), I asked the DRO in the hearing if my additional medical evidence submitted had been taken into consideration and he said yes, but the "wording has to read a certain way" and that the "c&p examiner knows how to word it for VA purposes".

Well, in my opinion one thing for sure, at least from this DRO perspective, the wording from a c&p examiner appears that it will outweigh another non VA doctor if they don't word their reports IAW VA guidelines.

[Berta]

If not due to AO (and that would be very difficult claim anyway) there must be a nexus in your SMRs or something else in your service records that shows etiology for the PN. ???

IMOs- there is significant info here on IMOs- I posted many times the criteria for IMOs (Independent Medical Opinions) that the VA wants.

They can easily reject medical evidence from a non VA doctor that do not fully conform to this criteria.

it is all here available under search.