What About Wrong Or Misspelled Medical Terms In The Va Denial?

[Guest Morgan]

Can anyone tell me whether any good would come out of NODing a denial for using wrong medical terms in the denial? It could be just an oversight (maybe misspelled--harmless?), but how am I to know what they were thinking or weighing if I don't read it as they wrote it? (rhetorical) Several errors like this are in his recent denial of all claims.

This one is material to the VA decision:

1. A claim was submitted for "a new heart condition due to over-anticoagulation causing a lung injury that stressed my heart, required hospitalization, and left this condition untreatable." The VA said they denied my claim for "a new heart condition due to overcoagulation [the opposite of my evidence] that caused a lung injury that stressed the heart and required hospitalization..."
   

This was a new condition caused and complicated by a SC condition. The injury to the lung was due to doctor error that caused excessive bleeding (over-anticoagulation), not from excessive blood clotting (overcoagulation). Edited February 13, 2006 by Morgan

[john999]

I would file a NOD on that. They misdiagnosed you or they did not read your medical records. That is a might big spelling error.

[Guest jstacy]

That would be a basis for a CUE, Mistated evidence is a common practive. The person who wrote the statement. I woder how it got passed the SCM. The most important thing here is not let them use the harmless error on the claim. They will attempt to do so. Also state that the VA rating officer who misstated the process is not a medical professional and he cannot add his own medical terminology as he or she sees fit. They are just lay statements.

[Guest Jim S.]

I would certainly put the VA on notice, that should you be harmed by misquoting your condition or the causal effect, exaserbating a SC problem, that they may be held accountable, in so far as the law will allow.

This is the type of error that can cost one his life, should this type of error, make it into the Veterans medical records, This information being reviewed by the VA C&P examiner and he may inadvertantly transfered this error into the Veterans medical records, the same records that some medical intern could read and continue the error in his subsquate report.

What I am saying is this is the type of error that you should go in person to the VARO and get it streighten out. The more people who are shown the error, the better your chances of getting it streightened out.

This not something you want to quible over to get your claim approved, this is something that has the ability to become a run away steam roller, with your life in the balance.

Normally I would say stick it to the VA, but this time I would error on the side of caution. Streighten out the misspelling/mistyping and then get on with your claim.

Jim S.

[Guest Berta]

Yes- everyone is correct-

These errors have to be clarified.

I am going through this myself-have med entry that says 'diag DVD'.

The VA med 'expert' tried to say this does not mean diagosose Diabetic VAscular Disease.

I sent the VA a page from Medilexicon or something showing that the standard medical community uses this abbreviation.

The VA doc tried to say it is "denies IVD (intervenous drugs)" that is so ridiculous - I found the DVD doctor's entries regarding MRI.

His "I" is nothing like the way he makes capital "D"

The VA will use against the veteran anything they can- hoping to get you to go away-

I challenged the above stuff and made the point that- had I not learned medical abbreviations long ago-I could not have succeeded in my FTCA and Sec 1151 claims.

A 1988 med entry said RO/CAD -I had no idea what that meant when I filed my claims-

I soon found out it was the crux of the tort and 1151-

Rule Out Cardonary Artery Disease- then the next entry made sense WU for CAD-

the WU "work up" never occurred.

A claimant should not allow them to get away with this stuff-

every single error they make shoud be pointed out to them-

They manipulate medicalize hoping we will not take the time to access medical texts and med dictionarys to see what it really means.

One of my vets had gone through years of BVA stuff. Deny deny-They said he had no nexus- his SO could not find a nexus , the vet himself couldn't find it---we all met here to see if I could help-I asked his branch of service and a few other things and managed to get his BVA decision-they didnt have it with them-

On his BVA decision- I found his nexus seconds after I printed it out from the BVA-

one medical word and for twelve years no one jumped on it.

It was not really as easy as it sounds here- I had to spent hours and hours on researching this medical word and then found the medical significance -

and he finally won his claim. Had the veteran himself really gone over his denials and taken the time to do what I did, he would not have waited for twelve years to get his SC.

You have to make sure these errors are corrected and do not overlook anything in your med recs-

there was stuff in Rod's med recs with lines drawn through them-I would breeze over these entries-at first-

but they were important-

other med recs had check marks on chem reports indicating concern or follow ups-

countless things one med entry said would be done, would never show up as being done in successive entries-

this stuff isnt computerized so many entries were difficult to read.

A smoking gun for my FTCA claim appears in a record that- for some strange reason- is the lightest print copy in the stack. Hard to read until I blew it all up-

It was bonafide proof of the VA medical cover up of Rod's heart disease.

I am glad you caught this Carrie because I think many vets overlook stuff like this and if they do not challenge it the VA can stand by what they wrote and continue to deny.

[Guest Morgan]

Berta,

I am combing his record because I have some pages just like what you have--hard to read because of handwriting and light print. I hadn't thought about blowing them up. I will do that today.

This whole decision is prejudicial and biased. I can almost "see" their sneer as they wrote dumb excuses to deny his claim because he couldn't make the exam. In one instance they said, "VA treatment reports do not indicate any findings of persistent edema, pain or stasis pigmentation of the lower extremities." A VA doctor's statement was attached to Dr. Bash's IMO that said, "patient suffers from chronic pain in lower extremities from persistent edema." Another doctor said, "patient has edema despite taking large-dose Lasix." To boot, they left the rating for the post-phlebitic syndrome at the current rate, which requires manifestation of persistent edema. And his private doctor wrote that he had stasis pigmentation. The rater said the doctor gave no treatment records, pathology, or diagnostic tests to support that statement. Stasis pigmentation--which they wrote as "statis" pigmentation--is a skin discoloration that is a sign of peripheral vascular disease from DVT. It is "diagnosed" with the doctor's EYES.

I was so shocked that the VA denied all of his claims. At first, I went into a nosedive with disappointment, but I've coming up fighting! I had worked on the claims for months (in every spare moment I could grab) to get everything right. They are so well substantiated and supported by medical evidence, current treatment, and the regs pasted in the cover letter that I was sure they wouldn't walk over that much law. They did. And remember, the congressional liaison told the senator's rep to tell us he needed to drop these claims or he could lose what benefits he has. Now that makes me fightin' mad. There is absolutely NO ground for such a statement, but I felt the senator's rep began to doubt me and what I had to say about the matter. He wouldn't return my calls after that. Can I report the threat to someone? I plan to write a huge follow up to the senator about all of these mistakes that led to denials. And I surely will reiterate that he is in this shape because of substandard medical care at the VA. I will include Dr. Bash's opinion on that.

Do you think I should go the BVA route with this? I think all the many blunders would speak volumes in getting BVA to see that this decision is biased. I talked to a physician's assistant a couple of week's ago who worked for the VA for five years, and he said because of my husband's age and his severe conditions we could probably get this through the BVA in a few weeks.

Carrie

[Guest Berta]

Carrie- if they have sent the BVA I-9 Appeal form- I sure would fill that out and send it to the VARO but still continue to support the claims with anything you have---

I would fight back on all the statements of error they have made-

Also if you have the 1-9-watch out for the 60 day time limit (they count weekends)and I suggest that before you state your appeal (to include any errors they have made in the SOC) State under the boxes for hearing etc--that you are taking exception to any and all errors made by the VAROand/or the BVA regarding any violations of 38 CFR and 38 USC as well as M21-1 and VA's Duty to Assist in handling your claims and this appeal. Then state exactly why you believe their decision was wrong.

Most 1-9s never even get to the BVA-but they can and should contain a concise argument with the facts in the SOC.

I went through almost 4 years of this same crap Carrie-I know how frustrating it is for you-

it really pisses me off because you men and women served for this- and paid for these VA employees to have nice GS jobs yet they can be employed by the feds and yet be illiterate too.

Once in a while I dig out my award letters so I can realise that those awful SOCs I used to get were really awful and stupid and that- by fighting back -I succeeded anyhow. I hope that encourages you-I was denied many times and it just gave me more strength to prove them wrong-

These are often tedious details - and many claimants do not really pick up on the nuances VA uses-which can be stated in an SOC and then used to

continuously deny a claim. It is worth every bit of time and effort you can take to make them get it all right.

I am speaking from experience- because with my present claim they still refuse to even look at Dr Bash's IMO- well- maybe they did look at it-last week- my claim went back to the DRO on the 8th and then an adjudicator got it on the 9th-they sure have been moving it around a lot lately- but I get frustrated knowing that they are probably trying to ignore my evidence again.

I not only blow up med recs, I use a mirror for some of them- also my daughter- former crytologist/Vietnamese linquist USAF Intell was able to decifer many things that looked like chicken scratches to me-I had many doctors handwriting to assess-that can be miserable to do-

this might help someone- I had a long page of something that I could not read at all and the VA got ahold of the doctor with a transcriber and they typed it for me.

Did you file a formal Sec 1151 claim as to the substandard care?

We Sec 1151 claimants go through Hell on wheels with the VA because our claims often reveal the incompetennce of their doctors and they- with medical evidence to support the medical errors-at some point have to agree. I say try to uncover both their medical and legal incompetence when you fight back a lousy SOC.