Need Precedent Opinion For Chronic Sinuitis And/or Rhinitis

[Rockhound]

If I am to explain to a ENT specialist what I need in a IME/IMO to help win my claim, I was hoping their is some Precedent Opinion that would help me or rather my specialist to know what they must provide in order for their opinion to be of sufficient value to rebut that of a NP C&P Examiners findings and what the VARO rater perceives as countering evidence?

I will continue to read what I can, but any help would be appreciated very much since my mind seems to work in sperts before it becomes fatigued to the point I must stop and start fresh another day.

Rockhound Rider

[allan]

You can search for Precedent cases here. A good place to find medical opinions used in cases that won.

USCAVC Search

http://search.vetapp.gov/isysadvsearch.html

Take your time & read the cases carefully.

Here's the Index to Disability Examination Worksheets

http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/Benefits/exams/index.htm

Hear's the Examination Worksheet for Nose, Sinus, Larynx, and Pharynx--- Changed May 1, 2007

http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/Benefits/exams/disexm41.htm

[Hoppy]

Rock,

I have seen BVA cases where the raters are having problems unraveling the difference between two doctors reports. One doctor says yes the other says no to service connection. They both support their arguments with logic. The raters do not know what to make of the doctors. So the raters start sending one doctors reports to the other and asking the doctor to specifically rebut the logic the other doctor used to support their determination. I have also seen them ask doctors to read specific literature and make an opinion as to how the literature applies to the veterans claim.

I think that the best thing to do is to have your doctor actually read the other report and shoot it down and offer better logic. I do not think that an argument between doctors would result in a precedent decision that would do anything other than establish proceedure. I do not think you will find the wording the doctor should use as part of the precedent. However, that does not mean you cannot cite a non precedent decision that has medical issues that were similar to yours that was favorable to the veteran.

[Rockhound]

While I continued my research on the Webb, I came across the exact report that the VA C&P Examiner was Quoting from. I failed to understand while reading the C&P report that she did cite the report and I took it to mean that her information was up to date. Instead it is the name of the Webb site Uptodate. The examiner quoted word for word, only that part of the report you can read for free, the complete report costs about $20.00 or more, depending I guess on how much time is spent in the research from the Webb specialist. It appears from the Examiners, that they quoted only that portion of the report that is free and did not look any further.

This is not an opinion from a VA DR., but from a online Webb sight. This is very strange that a VA C&P Examiner would use/Quote an online medical opinion, yet it appears that non of my online medical information was not.

I feel I should complain to someone on this. If they are going to quote such a sourcs, then they should quote the complete information and not just what you would get for free. What I am trying to say is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Sighting my own source, which is just as relyable, would then it seems, put the literature in equipoise. 50/50 and since the literature that she is basing her opinion on is no better than mine, then my information/literature should prevail.

I tried last night to access a more complete report, but for some reason I could not get my log in information to take so I could pay the fee and see what else the Uptodate Webb site would provide. I'm going to try once again.

Rockhound Rider :o

[allan]

"What I am trying to say is, what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

Rockhound,

the problem is the VBA holds all the cards. They get all the aces, you get all the deuces and jacks or better is required before you can even open.

If they don't want to grant any weight to your favorable C&P/IMO they order another one. If you go and get one on your own to rebut theirs, they order another to shoot it down. Than it starts all over again. Any nasty trick they can pull with the wording is perfectly acceptible. They know the logic is to drive you crazy with stress & frustration until you have to give up, just to keep sane.

Those that are able to keep their claims going, may win in the end. Someday. If they live long enough.

THey choose what evidence bares weight. It's their choice.

A C&P examiner only needs to be trained to give the examination. They don't even need a medical degree I don't believe. But they will take precedent over just about any specialist you can produce if their opinion is not favorable.

Not favorable is what they seek. Their not interested in seeing truth.

If they can deny a combat veterans claim for loss of limb & tell him/her they still have it in the denial, what could they care about a favorable IMO?

They don't care.

I'm not saying give up it's a lost cause. But I am saying you better have something really good, cuz the likelyhood of them blowing it off and getting one of their NP's to shoot it down is very high, even if the secretary of health did the IMO for you.

Thats how this outfit plays.

[Hoppy]

If you submit literature that is not incorporated into a favorable report by a doctor and the VA get a doctor to write an unfavorable report then any literature you submit without a doctor commenting on its applicability will not override the unfavorable report written by a doctor even when the doctor cites literature on the web.

My original recommendation still stands. Get a doctor to look at the other doctors report and the literature and write a report that specifically finds fault with the report written by the C&P and adds supporting logic that supports service connection. I have read BVA cases where this has worked. There was one case that I rememmber in particular that involved Dr. Bash and a VA compensation and pension doctor. The bottom line is medical evidence. You need to build a trap that has as little wiggle room as possible.

[john999]

Rock

You are going to have to come up with the money to get someone like Bash to do this thing for you. You need a medical advocate and not just some doctor who is putting in his time. I think this is what is being said.

John