I Think I Have A Not So Good Imo!

[Jayg]

forget it folks, back to the drawing board, if there's time!

Edited March 13, 2009 by Jayg

[Berta]

Carlie- I do think it will help him-

but I just seem to hone into anything the VA could reject in IMOs-I have read a lot of BV decisions where they pick IMOs apart-I hope I didnt sound too negative here-

But I would rather bring up anything negative that I see here- than have the VA do that down the road-

Jayq mentioned the gap between his service time and the VA and this isnt unusual- but I wonder if VA has questioned continuity of symptoms.

[carlie]

Jayg,I went back to one of your earlier posts Mar,4, 2008 tofind out what your current 40% SC was for. "I am 40% overall, 10% hearing/tinnitus SC, 20% L ankle SC, Flat feet 10% SC."

Berta - I'm sorry I didn't feel you gave the IMO doctor much consideration.

I didn't see where much medical rationale for the disability's that this doctor illudes to:

no clear diagnosis - no dates listed to support treatment of claimed disabilities -

no rom findings of disabilities, no medical evidence supporting problems in gait due to flat feet,

tons of speculation is written... etc...

Page 2 of the IMO states :

:On March 21, 2006 an x-ray of the left ankle was performed showing small ununited ossification center versus old avulsion fracture, etc........................

Schedule of Rating Disabilities

He is already SC'd at 20% for the left ankle - and there is no medical evidence I find in this IMO

that would warrant an increase on this - no ankylosis is shown in this IMO -

no rom measurements, no Medical Evidence providing a true diagnosis - or nexus to

a possible secondary condition due to the 10% SC'd flat feet or the 20% SC'd left ankle.

The Ankle

5273 Os calcis or astragalus, malunion of:

Marked deformity.............................................. 20

Moderate deformity............................................ 10

I read this IMO as about 90% speculation without medical evidence of diagnosis.

For the veteran I sure wish I saw it different.

Jayg - If you feel this is good - go with it and I sure wish you the best.

I'm only trying to point out the pot holes - as I feel VA will - so you can prepare.

jmho,

carlie

[john999]

The VA does often go over IMO's with a microscope looking for anything they can use to deny the claim. All it takes is one unsupported statement and out it goes. They love to twist the meaning of an IMO by taking a few words out of context. They did it to me more than once with strong IMO's. Speculation is a death sentence for an IMO.

[Jayg]

Jayg,I went back to one of your earlier posts Mar,4, 2008 tofind out what your current 40% SC was for. "I am 40% overall, 10% hearing/tinnitus SC, 20% L ankle SC, Flat feet 10% SC."

Berta - I'm sorry I didn't feel you gave the IMO doctor much consideration.

I didn't see where much medical rationale for the disability's that this doctor illudes to:

no clear diagnosis - no dates listed to support treatment of claimed disabilities -

no rom findings of disabilities, no medical evidence supporting problems in gait due to flat feet,

tons of speculation is written... etc...

Page 2 of the IMO states :

:on March 21, 2006 an x-ray of the left ankle was performed showing small ununited ossification center versus old avulsion fracture, etc........................

Schedule of Rating Disabilities

He is already SC'd at 20% for the left ankle - and there is no medical evidence I find in this IMO

that would warrant an increase on this - no ankylosis is shown in this IMO -

no rom measurements, no Medical Evidence providing a true diagnosis - or nexus to

a possible secondary condition due to the 10% SC'd flat feet or the 20% SC'd left ankle.

The Ankle

5273 Os calcis or astragalus, malunion of:

Marked deformity.............................................. 20

Moderate deformity............................................ 10

I read this IMO as about 90% speculation without medical evidence of diagnosis.

For the veteran I sure wish I saw it different.

Jayg - If you feel this is good - go with it and I sure wish you the best.

I'm only trying to point out the pot holes - as I feel VA will - so you can prepare.

jmho,

carlie

After the army, I drifted. I hurt I went to the doctor, paid him/her and moved on. Since I settled down, if I had a backache, I called in with the flu. A back ache can cost you your job. The knees I couldn't hide. I fell off my machine a few times and got wrote up for it. You try real hard not to leave a paper trail.

We aren't trying for an increase in SC. Those ratings are accurate as far as they go. But secondary conditions is what's under debate. ALL have been denied. In one C&P exam the examiner was specifically instructed no to look at or consider anything else. Only the feet. But I have Severe Debilitating Arthritis. Knees, hip, back are shot. My most recent SSOC said, in relation to claim for TDIU, Iu, whatever, that it's (arthritis) on the record but without connection to SC can't be granted. It's a toss up whether my SC conditions can be responsible for causing arthritis. Altered gait is well established. But no doctor can prove beyond a doubt that anybody's SDA (oa) was caused by any particular event(s). Altered gait is well documented. So you argue it can cause it and state as best as can why you believe it. That's how I understand it. Then, since etymology can't be either proved or disproved you go for the benefit of the doubt rule.

Whatever.

I get the picture.

It's a dog and I'm goning down in a tighening spiral and am gonna prang.

Just as sorry as I ever was and nothing's going to change that. Yeah I'm depressed but doubt they'd grant that either. No point in trying and I don't want to take those drugs anyway.

Well. There's no time to change it now. I'm going to go with what we've got, and when that fails, I'm at the end of the line. I guess I check in with the rest of the deadenders.

Thanks all.

[Berta]

You SC feet could be "aggravating" some or all of the other conditions-(knees, back)

and even arthritis can be found as "more than likely" due to a SC condition.

These claims can succeed but the medical rationale has to clearly connect the dots.

"probable" GERD- you need a diagnosis on this-and then perhaps the link to NSAIDs can be used to support this claim.

Same as the PTSD-

this would need a definitive diagnosis and stressor etc-

my neighbor-20 years USAF-had back injury in service and now has arthritis in back and legs.VA said already the athritis is more than likely due to and aggravated by the SC back.

VA gave him 10% right off the bat but he is unwilling to ask for more- as this is all deducted from his retirement pay.

I sure would pursue this claim Jay- lets see how they handle the IMO-

but dont forget-service connection can be gained due to "aggravation".

Almost like secondary SC.

There is topic here and discussion on how aggravation claims work.

VA will usually not consider any way to SC unless we ourselves raise the exact issues.

You SC feet could be "aggravating" some or all of the other conditions-(knees, back)

and even arthritis can be found as "more than likely" due to a SC condition.

These claims can succeed but the medical rationale has to clearly connect the dots.

"probable" GERD- you need a diagnosis on this-and then perhaps the link to NSAIDs can be used to support this claim.

Same as the PTSD-

this would need a definitive diagnosis and stressor etc-

my neighbor-20 years USAF-had back injury in service and now has arthritis in back and legs.VA said already the athritis is more than likely due to and aggravated by the SC back.

VA gave him 10% right off the bat but he is unwilling to ask for more- as this is all deducted from his retirement pay.

I sure would pursue this claim Jay- lets see how they handle the IMO-

but dont forget-service connection can be gained due to "aggravation".

Almost like secondary SC.

There is topic here and discussion on how aggravation claims work.

VA will usually not consider any way to SC unless we ourselves raise the exact issues.

[Jayg]

Thanks for the vote of confidence. The rater allowed it wasn't what they usually looked for but that he would accept it. More details in my new post.

http://www.hadit.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=25688