Results Of My Eye C7p

[Mark]

Berta,

Here is what he wrote:

I got the write up/results from my C&P and here is what it says:

Quote: My assessment for Mr X is that he has visual feild loss in the left eye of unknown etilogy. He does have a history of chronic migraines with normal MRI. At this point I would associate his his visual feild loss in his left eye with those migriane headaches. There are evidentary clinical histories of patients with chronic migraines undergoing a permenent scotoma in the eye that the ocular migraine is occurring, and it appears that at this point and time, by diagnosis of exclusion, that this is what Mr X is undergoing. I would feel feel at this point in time also that his visual feild loss is of a permament nature. Mr X also does have a pterygium in the left eye that is not affecting his vision whatssoever. My plan is for him to return for a Golmann visual feild to map out the exact extent of his visual loss that he has undergone in the left eye. I am unable to forward his electronic copy at this time of the Visuals Feilds Test."

What do you think?

Mark

[Guest Berta]

Berta,

Here is what he wrote:

I got the write up/results from my C&P and here is what it says:

Quote: My assessment for Mr X is that he has visual feild loss in the left eye of unknown etilogy. He does have a history of chronic migraines with normal MRI. At this point I would associate his his visual feild loss in his left eye with those migriane headaches. There are evidentary clinical histories of patients with chronic migraines undergoing a permenent scotoma in the eye that the ocular migraine is occurring, and it appears that at this point and time, by diagnosis of exclusion, that this is what Mr X is undergoing. I would feel feel at this point in time also that his visual feild loss is of a permament nature. Mr X also does have a pterygium in the left eye that is not affecting his vision whatssoever. My plan is for him to return for a Golmann visual feild to map out the exact extent of his visual loss that he has undergone in the left eye. I am unable to forward his electronic copy at this time of the Visuals Feilds Test."

What do you think?

Mark

-------------------------------Reply______________________________

Mark- I feel this is a very good medical statement- I just wish the doc didn't put in this part--

"visual feild loss in the left eye of unknown etilogy" even though he does connect this to your migraines-

Because some adjudicator might just focus on that- unknown etiology-

I see claims denied due to "unknown etiology" without considering the rest of the opinion.

The net has some excellent medical treatices on migraines- and scotomas-

I suggest that you use your browser and Google to try to find a medical article or text to bolster what the doctor said-

He certainly is right -the visual loss is most likely due to the migraines-

This is the strong part-"There are evidentary clinical histories of patients with chronic migraines undergoing a permenent scotoma in the eye that the ocular migraine is occurring, and it appears that at this point and time, by diagnosis of exclusion, that this is what Mr X is undergoing".

One or two medical texts or abstracts to bolster that- sent to the VA (I would send this with a copy of the C & P to them- even though they have it)- will get the raters attention and they will overlook that 'unknown etiology part,' even though he opined well that there is a known etiology- the migraines-

just my opinion-(after decades of reading decisions) the VA plays so many words games with C & Ps that we have to anticipate that.

If you did not have the actual C & P and did not know you could get it- they could deny visual problems as secondary saying "examiner stated no known etiology"for vision involvement-

and then never state in the decision the rest of the opinion.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Berta

[Mark]

Berta,

Thanks. I looked on google but found very liitle in the way of good infp and migraines. I will keep looking and see what I can find. More later as I find it. Thanks again.

Mark