C&p Language Question

[cannoncocker]

On a bright note the IME office called and said they would discount 30% if paid in cash, so instead of 500 dollars, they would charge minus tax 338.00. So i'll take what I can get, no doubt will increase manifold when they start digging through Dr. king's findings.

Anyway Dr. king found the following, all the rest of the truth aside, what does the following mean: The are no signs of Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Syndrome with chronic and permanent nerve root involvement. Specifically what does he mean "Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Syndrome"?

He also wrote that examination revealed no evidence of radiating pain on movement. That would imply he is either psychic or I am retarded since how would he know by looking at me whether I experienced radiating pain? As if I wouldn't know what Sciatica radiating pain does and the locations.

Off topic, so any idea what exactly he means by Lumbar Intervertebral Disc Syndrome? Is that herniations etc.?

Thank you.

[MikeR]

It's typical when I went in the first time for my back they used a lot of mumbo jumbo to deny the claim, and of course when my IMO came back and was pretty damning they were just like ok, you got us when I went back on appeal.

[cannoncocker]

Hi Mike, looks like there is a lot of that going on at the VA. That Dr King that tried to slam dunk me is a disgrace tothe prfession. The neurologist (IMO) I just got finished seeing didn't even do a SLR who said I was negative and the VA said I was positive, she said they weren't even relevant to what we are dealing with or pretty much outdated. eithe way he said my back was fine.

First, the IMO said it's gonna be tough to prove casation after the length of time I had been out. She also said it was a mistake not to get an exit exam. I told her the truth, that why would I since I thought you got out, left, and good luck. Never heard of a VA in 6.5 years. Never asked me to be a genius to cock a cannon!

Anyway I gave her the old law statement or tenant being what would a reasonable person believe. Since I had led a sedentary work life what do you think caused my back problems. she looked at the junk King, won't even call him a dr anymore, he doesn't derserve that, pushed out for the VA and she said they hire people just like him to do this.

So I showed he this:

Medical statements regarding possible Service Connection:

Is due to- 100%

*** More likely than not- Greater than 50%

*** At least as likely as not- 50% (Benefit of doubt goes to Vet)

Not at least as likely as not- Less than 50%

Is not due to- 0%

then gave her the attached form which differed from this a little but she gave me:

At least as likely as not

Should I go back and shot for the More likely than not since that wasn't an option on the sheet I gave her or just roll with what I got. Shoots down king saying nothing wrong with back. for 340 bucks it keeps the hope alive.

She said she would mail here notes to mee.

I have a DRO with conference request in currently for the lumbar denial. What do I do from here?

[carlie]

cannon,

It is also imperative that in the IMO she makes statements to the effect that

she has reviewed your SMR's AND suppotrs the "as likely as not" statement

with full medical rationale that hopefully lists something shown in SMR's

Example:

I have reviewed the patient's service medical record's and it is my medical opinion that

the current lumbar condition is at least as likely as not a direct result of XXX as shown

in records dated XX/XX/XXXX etc....

And - NO - I would not push her for the "more likely than not".

You MUST get this additional statement and info from her in writing

or I feel the IMO will be insufficient to help advance your goal.

jmho,

carlie

[cannoncocker]

I will print that off and hand it to the receptionist and see how she feels about that. since that is all true i don't see any problem with that.

Thanks

[john999]

When you have an IMO who tells you that your nexus will be hard to prove that is a bad sign. You want a strong statement of support, and not a luke warm report. If she does like Carlie says to do then it might be OK. "What would a reasonalbe person think" has nothing to do with the VA. The "benefit of doubt" is what you are supposed to have in the VA system. There are no reasonable minds inside the VA. She has to do a medical report and not just "notes". It has to conform to what Carlie says. Understand that the people who rate you have no medical or legal training. The weight of medical evidence is what wins a claim. You might need to save up and get Dr. Bash to do your report.

[cannoncocker]

When you have an IMO who tells you that your nexus will be hard to prove that is a bad sign. You want a strong statement of support, and not a luke warm report. If she does like Carlie says to do then it might be OK. "What would a reasonalbe person think" has nothing to do with the VA. The "benefit of doubt" is what you are supposed to have in the VA system. There are no reasonable minds inside the VA. She has to do a medical report and not just "notes". It has to conform to what Carlie says. Understand that the people who rate you have no medical or legal training. The weight of medical evidence is what wins a claim. You might need to save up and get Dr. Bash to do your report.

Oh yea, I relalize of course the "what a resonable person would believe" statement would be totally irrelevant to the VA, but the point is this was one human being talking to another human being and without winning her over the game would be over before we event started the game since she had said earlier that it would be hard to prove a nexus from such a long period of time. That small statement put me back in the game, since it is one of those obvious, undeniable things, as opposed to what? Saying yes it's been a long time might as well give up.

Actually she said all the things that Carlie mentioned, minus the dates. It is possible for me to have her add those in, with her own writing, and just hand her the dates to add. Her husband was a Vietnam Vet so she was not totally unfamiliar with the VA and was not a vet hater type. Actully she was pretty hard nose been very reasonable.

I will see what her notes look like, by going up there and get a copy in person and see what needs to be adjusted. I can't really tell her to fix a b and c when I have no idea what her write up says.

I am with carlie 100% when it comes to requesting a different finding since it is not really necessary since at least in theory the benefit goes to the vet. But for now I need to know the rest of her findings, other than the fact she found:

a. At least as likely as not related to

b. an injury , disease, or event dring the vets military service.(Chronic Left Lumbar Radiopathy(spelling?)i believe Sciatica.

c. Injury or event ocurring during service (as described by veteran or found in other records provided by the vet): Repetitive Lifting (which ties directly into the niosh lifting equation) which the rounds for the howitzer were far in excess of the Federal limits!

They cannot deny the 6.5 years of breaking the federal lifting limits!

I just don't know if I should sucker punch them with this, with any additional corrections or not, as required, or send this in before the DRO Hearing with the requested conference. If I went to the conference, slapped this info on the table in rebuttal and say your turn, what?

PS she didn't write that down that it would be hard to prove a nexus from a long time ago, that was her and me figuring a way into this successfully. She signed the doc i handed her and she said she would mail her findings which would be:Chronic Left Lumbar Radiopathy(spelling?)i believe Sciatica.

Edited September 23, 2009 by cannoncocker