Allan Or Anyone

[ruby]

I know I read somewhere that the VA encourages the medical examiners to accept medical literature etc to support thier claims. I can't find what this information now and I need it for a NOD.

I don't know if it was a BVA,CAVC decision, letter of some sort.

Does anyone know if this exist and where I would find it. I was denied based on no medical literature to support, yet, the examiner refused it and the VARO ignored it --yes, it was submitted my an MD.

Thanks.

[allan]

Ruby,

Hoppy has posted the info I think your looking for.

However, the VA has not reconized "ANY" medical treatis i've ever sent in nor when a Dr has provided a comment on it.

As far as taking a long time treating Dr's opinion, over a 20minute evaluation of your records for an IMO? They will take the 20 min IMO almost everytime if it's not favorable. That's how they've treated mine in the past.

My treating practioner for nearly two decades & medical records, along with the VAMC C&P examiner stated service connection since my health complaints have been steady over the years. Some 30+ years.

The VA followup with a 20 min IMO of my records stating, since I had "no" health complaints until the 90's, it couldn't be SC.

They took the 20min IMO over my treating PCP & their C&P examiner.

After a decade has passed, they now reconize, "one" of eight issues that was before them in 1997 from my treating MD & the C&P examiner.

The bottom line is to keep you from recieving the $$$$. It doesn't matter how deceptive the act is on the VA's part. They call that an "error".

Deception on your part is called, "fraud" and is a federal offence.

[Wings]

The bottom line is to keep you from recieving the $$$$. It doesn't matter how deceptive the act is on the VA's part. They call that an "error".

Deception on your part is called, "fraud" and is a federal offence.

[Hoppy]

§3.159 Department of Veterans Affairs assistance in developing claims.

(a) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) Competent medical evidence means evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions. Com-petent medical evidence may also mean statements conveying sound medical principles found in medical treatises. It would also include statements contained in authoritative writings such as medical and scientific articles and research reports or analyses

I have seen many claims denied because the BVA states that there was no evidence linking the veterans case specifically to the literature. That is why having a doctor review it and link it is important.

It might just be that the doctor specifically has to state that the literature directly supports the opinion that the doctor is advancing. I would recommend a statement by the clinician that the literature directly supports the doctors conclusions.

[ruby]

Thanks to everyone for your input, I have been out of touch recently and haven't read my threads.

[ruby]

The Board acknowledges the medical article submitted by the

veteran. With regard to medical treatise evidence, the Court

has held that a medical article or treatise "can provide

important support when combined with an opinion of a medical

professional" if the medical article or treatise evidence

discusses generic relationships with a degree of certainty

such that, under the facts of a specific case, there is at

least "plausible causality" based upon objective facts rather

than on an unsubstantiated lay medical opinion. Mattern v.

West, 12 Vet. App. 222, 228 (1999); see also Sacks v. West,

11 Vet. App. 314 (1998) and Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509

(1998).

The RO should also contact Jan Beyea,

Ph.D., Consulting in the Public Interest,

550 South Bay Avenue, Islip, New York

11751 and request that he provide the

referenced statistical support for his

conclusion that the veteran is 1000 times

more likely to suffer injury from Hanford

related injury than the average person.

He should also be requested to provide

any new information regarding the release

of radiation from Hanford during the time

the veteran was stationed there and any

radiation dose reconstruction based on

that information. Any information so

obtained must be associated with the

claims folder. Failures to respond or

negative replies to any request should be

noted in writing and also associated with

the claims folder.

They stated his opinion was favorable however he did have all my records to review (but he did have the pertinent records and they were documented) and the examiner stated there was no medical literature to support this claim and in his opinion my arthritis appears to be osteo and not reactive.

The IMO specialist stated he review my records all of them and in his opinion the cyst were hs additional he also review other pertient records pertaining to a correlation of the hs to ReA and in his opinion it is "more likely then not" secondary to the HS. He provide the list of literation to support that HS is a know causative factor of ReA.

They used part of his report regarding the cyst to hs in the desision section but totally disregarded the medical literature to support or his nexus statement for the ReA.

They are complete morons and what can we expect the reading comprehension is only required to be a the 2nd grade leve.