Thought this might help in our discussions about IMOs that don't seem to be read or considered:
Carrie
The Board cannot make its own independent medical determination, and it must
have plausible reasons, based upon medical evidence in the record, for favoring one medical opinion over another. Evans; Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997).
With regard to medical evidence, an assessment or opinion by a health care provider is never conclusive and is not entitled to absolute deference. Indeed, the courts have provided guidance for weighing medical evidence. They have held, for example, that a postservice reference to injuries
sustained in service, without a review of service medical records, is not competent medical evidence. Grover v. West, 12 Vet. App. 109, 112 (1999). Further, a bare conclusion, even one reached by a health care professional, is not probative without a factual predicate in the record. Miller v. West, 11 Vet. App. 345, 348 (1998). In addition, an examination that does not take into account the records of prior medical treatment is neither thorough nor fully informed. Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991). A bare transcription of lay history, unenhanced by additional comment by the transcriber, is not competent medical evidence
merely because the transcriber is a health care professional. LeShore v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 406, 409 (1995). A medical opinion based on speculation, without supporting clinical data or other rationale, does not provide the required degree of medical certainty. Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999). Also, a medical opinion is inadequate when unsupported by clinical evidence. Black v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 177, 180 (1995). Finally, a medical opinion based on an inaccurate factual premise is not probative. Reonal v. Brown,
5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993). In sum, the weight to be accorded the various items of medical evidence in this case must be determined by the quality of the evidence and not necessarily by its quantity or source.
In this instance the Board finds that the VA examiner's opinion is more probative of the issue here. Unlike the private examiner, who generally offered an opinion without clinical data or other rationale, the VA examiner reviewed the veteran's entire claims file, and recorded a complete examination of the veteran. The VA examiner also offered rationale for the conclusion reached.
The Board notes that in January 2004, the RO sent a letter to the above noted private examiner and asked him to provide records regarding his treatment of the veteran. No response was received. As such, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for SMC for loss of use of both feet.
Question
Guest Morgan
Thought this might help in our discussions about IMOs that don't seem to be read or considered:
Carrie
The Board cannot make its own independent medical determination, and it must
have plausible reasons, based upon medical evidence in the record, for favoring one medical opinion over another. Evans; Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997).
With regard to medical evidence, an assessment or opinion by a health care provider is never conclusive and is not entitled to absolute deference. Indeed, the courts have provided guidance for weighing medical evidence. They have held, for example, that a postservice reference to injuries
sustained in service, without a review of service medical records, is not competent medical evidence. Grover v. West, 12 Vet. App. 109, 112 (1999). Further, a bare conclusion, even one reached by a health care professional, is not probative without a factual predicate in the record. Miller v. West, 11 Vet. App. 345, 348 (1998). In addition, an examination that does not take into account the records of prior medical treatment is neither thorough nor fully informed. Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 124 (1991). A bare transcription of lay history, unenhanced by additional comment by the transcriber, is not competent medical evidence
merely because the transcriber is a health care professional. LeShore v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 406, 409 (1995). A medical opinion based on speculation, without supporting clinical data or other rationale, does not provide the required degree of medical certainty. Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999). Also, a medical opinion is inadequate when unsupported by clinical evidence. Black v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 177, 180 (1995). Finally, a medical opinion based on an inaccurate factual premise is not probative. Reonal v. Brown,
5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993). In sum, the weight to be accorded the various items of medical evidence in this case must be determined by the quality of the evidence and not necessarily by its quantity or source.
In this instance the Board finds that the VA examiner's opinion is more probative of the issue here. Unlike the private examiner, who generally offered an opinion without clinical data or other rationale, the VA examiner reviewed the veteran's entire claims file, and recorded a complete examination of the veteran. The VA examiner also offered rationale for the conclusion reached.
The Board notes that in January 2004, the RO sent a letter to the above noted private examiner and asked him to provide records regarding his treatment of the veteran. No response was received. As such, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for SMC for loss of use of both feet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
1
Popular Days
Jan 11
3
Jan 13
2
Jan 12
1
Top Posters For This Question
john999 1 post
Tower_Rat 1 post
Popular Days
Jan 11 2006
3 posts
Jan 13 2006
2 posts
Jan 12 2006
1 post
5 answers to this question
Recommended Posts