What Does This Mean? Good Or Bad?

[c&p man]

this is from a award letter from a c and p exam.. Service treatment records from june 7,1993 to 1996 show treatment for right ankle pain. VA examination dated march 31,2009 finds a current strain of the right ankle wiht flexion from 0 to 30 degrees. Examiner notes pian wiht plantar flexion. the examiners opinoion is that, due to lack of chronicity of treament, the current strain is less likely than not related to treatment in service. Service connection for right ankle strain is deniend since this condition neither occured or was cuased by service.

Ok happen in service and thier is a current strain? i do have a bone spur on my heel now...my left ankle and heel are sc... what does DUE TO LACK OF CHRONICTY OF TREATMENT MEAN? does this mena they think it might be like a acute sprian and if i show medical eveidence of treatment from now on that it will be sc?

[carlie]

c&p man.

You have gotten several people providing thoughts and guidance

on your ankle issue in this thread. You will probably continue to get more.

c&p man and rgero311975,

Anytime - in any thread - when mis or erroneous information is posted

it should be questioned, discussed and corrected.

If neither of you understand this I will put it quite simple for you.

How about if someone comes on here and posts this,

c&p man,

The quickest way for you to get your right ankle service connected

is to have lay statements written and notorized by your family members.

All they have to write is that you are in great pain and your boss fired

you because of your left ankle. Many times during each day you are unable to

walk or move your ankle at all - because of this you can't get up to use the

bathroom and end up having to urinate on yourself.

If the lay statements are notorized then the VA has to accept that as a fact

in weighing the evidence and they will have to grant your claim service connected

at the highest percentage because you can't move your ankle.

Now of course - the paragraph above is a complete falsehood, part of helping

vets out here INCLUDES the correction of mis-information.

I prefer to leave threads in their original form and topic - but when a member

brings in mis-information it needs to be corrected.

You both need to understand this is part of what we do here.

carlie

[rgero311975]

c&p man.

You have gotten several people providing thoughts and guidance

on your ankle issue in this thread. You will probably continue to get more.

c&p man and rgero311975,

Anytime - in any thread - when mis or erroneous information is posted

it should be questioned, discussed and corrected.

If neither of you understand this I will put it quite simple for you.

How about if someone comes on here and posts this,

c&p man,

The quickest way for you to get your right ankle service connected

is to have lay statements written and notorized by your family members.

All they have to write is that you are in great pain and your boss fired

you because of your left ankle. Many times during each day you are unable to

walk or move your ankle at all - because of this you can't get up to use the

bathroom and end up having to urinate on yourself.

If the lay statements are notorized then the VA has to accept that as a fact

in weighing the evidence and they will have to grant your claim service connected

at the highest percentage because you can't move your ankle.

Now of course - the paragraph above is a complete falsehood, part of helping

vets out here INCLUDES the correction of mis-information.

I prefer to leave threads in their original form and topic - but when a member

brings in mis-information it needs to be corrected.

You both need to understand this is part of what we do here.

carlie

found this hope it helps...on the chronicity thing... i think but i am not sure maybe someone else can explain it more clearly but i think the exaimner denied you bc you were only treated once in seervice and didnt show a chronicity of treatment= state of being chronic..... and that you never showed any treatment or compaints since you got out of service.... i think that you have to get that imo bc even if you show chroic treatment you are 50/50 on getting it..so secodary it to your left or get imo ....look at the following as how i came to my opionion..

Service connection may be granted for disability arising from

disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active

service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).

With chronic disease shown as such in service, or within a

pertinent presumption period under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307, so as

to permit a finding of service connection, subsequent

manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date,

however remote, are service connected, unless clearly

attributable to intercurrent causes. To show chronic disease

in service there is required a combination of manifestations

sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient

observation to establish chronicity at the time, as

distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis

including the word chronic. Continuity of symptomatology is

required only where the condition noted during service (or in

the presumption period) is not, in fact, shown to be chronic

or where the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately

questioned. When the fact of chronicity in service is not

adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after

discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. §

3.303(:(.

[broncovet]

Yes..and if this information is erroneous, then someone should be able to supply a link as to why or what regulation makes it erroneous. They should not just "shoot from the hip" and say the information is erroneous, when they have no idea whether it is or not.

In Carlies hypothetical example, one could cite the the regulations showing her example to be inaccurate.

C&P man:

I think what they are saying here, with the word chronic is that your condition needs to be ONGOING. It is not enough for you to break your ankle in service..you broke your ankle, they put a cast on it and fixed it. Done. To be compensated, you have to show that the ankle continues to give you pain, that you have been to the doctor multiple times since your military service ended. You have chronic pain that continues since your injury.

If you did NOT go to the doctor about your broken ankle pain since 1973, then the VA is going to say your claim lacks chronicity and will be denied, even if it starts hurting again in 2009, because that pain could be from skiing last winter, not your broken ankle in 1973.

Edited June 29, 2009 by broncovet

[kw34]

Hoppy,

I was on vacation but to clarify I took that directly from my award letter I cut from the letter after scanning into the computer. It was the only thing I could find that dealt with the subject. I am also a Gulf War vet so it may apply to GW claims it was listed under evidence.

Edited June 30, 2009 by kw34

[Hoppy]

KW

My take is that it applies to "Gulf war illness". It is defined in the section I posted. I do not think it applies to any condition that onset during the Gulf War. It applies only to those defined as "Gulf War Illness"

[broncovet]

Carlie

In a PM, I sent you the link to the watchdog article showing, in 2006, the "average" QTC hearing exam was $495.55 and that article pointed that QTC medical examiners had received a raise exceeding 400%.

That watchdog article is here:

http://www.vawatchdog.org/old%20newsflashe...5-10-2006-9.htm

Further, in this 2006 article, it points out that QTC is pressured to deny Veterans:

http://www.vawatchdog.org/old%20newsflashe...4-23-2006-6.htm

Veterans groups and radio talk shows recently have seized on Principi's ties to QTC and accused him of conflicts of interest.

John Hennon, who broadcasts a veterans show in Illinois, said he was convinced that QTC "was contracted to deny as many claims as it could." He blamed Principi. He said it was "not a surprise" that the former secretary had an interest in QTC.

Skip Dreps, head of government relations for the Northwest chapter of Paralyzed Veterans of America, said: "I'm disappointed in the secretary." He said he regretted "even the appearance of a conflict of interest."

QTC has additional critics.