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.

[carlie]

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?

cannon,

1)

I don't feel that the theory of "6.5 years of breaking the federal lifting limits",

will be anything that holds much weight with the decision maker.

If it were,then there would have already been thousands of cases using this theory.

2)

I do not feel this is a sucker punch on your behalf - it is simply presenting

another doctors opinion. Keep in mind that the bottom line is the decision

maker will go with the doctor's opinion of their choice -----

At this point - your bottom line is to bring in any additional medical evidence

that could sway the decision your way a bit, to at least bring forth the

benefit of the doubt, on your behalf.

I do advise that anyone attending a DRO Hearing try to remember they are not there

to alienate the DRO. The idea is more to get the DRO to work with you and actually hear

and weigh your side of the evidence, all of the evidence.

That's how I see your situation.

jmho,

carlie

[cannoncocker]

cannon,

1)

I don't feel that the theory of "6.5 years of breaking the federal lifting limits",

will be anything that holds much weight with the decision maker.

If it were,then there would have already been thousands of cases using this theory.

2)

I do not feel this is a sucker punch on your behalf - it is simply presenting

another doctors opinion. Keep in mind that the bottom line is the decision

maker will go with the doctor's opinion of their choice -----

At this point - your bottom line is to bring in any additional medical evidence

that could sway the decision your way a bit, to at least bring forth the

benefit of the doubt, on your behalf.

I do advise that anyone attending a DRO Hearing try to remember they are not there

to alienate the DRO. The idea is more to get the DRO to work with you and actually hear

and weigh your side of the evidence, all of the evidence.

That's how I see your situation.

jmho,

carlie

This is more than a humble opinion. i feel you have loads more experience with this than i do hence i come to you seeking wisdom. I read the federal lifting limits do not apply to the military or they could not do half the things they do, having sais that, it does not, according to me and the dr change the fact it has the same negative impact on your body, therefore if you suffer as a result of this allowed activity, you should be allowed compensation, or no vet would be allowed any comp for any reason. If action a leads to negative result b, whether the feds decided to allow it or not the disease/injury is the same .

Do you think I should get this corrected and mail it in to the appeals section?

I am looking for your experience and want to follow it to the extent my circumstances will allow. You are right of course that if every fed reg were violated were to be compensated we'd all be filing C&P's, the point is I have a medical doctor saying At least as likely as not for sciatica, which is the key, I suffer a disease/injury from my duty, not the fact they did not adhere to fed requirements, but the requiremnets were implemented for a scientific medical reason. In this case to prevent sciatica.

Edited September 23, 2009 by cannoncocker

[carlie]

the point is I have a medical doctor saying At least as likely as not for sciatica, which is the key, I suffer a disease/injury from my duty,

cannon,

As I posted earlier, if she will support the above with,

have reveiwed smr's and support it with medical rationale,

that's the meat you need to make your dinner better.

carlie

[cannoncocker]

cannon,

As I posted earlier, if she will support the above with,

have reveiwed smr's and support it with medical rationale,

that's the meat you need to make your dinner better.

carlie

Good to go. I'll just give her till say tomorrow afternoon, go by her office to get a copy of her findigs, then over the weekend i'll match it up to the statement above and be sure the statement above is included, have her write it in or write the data in myself and have here resign a new doc, then just hold it till the hearing.

I was just using the wrong language when I referred to sucker punching. Please excuse the over zealous nature of my emotion on this but please realize they have straight fabricated, just as the doctor pointed out, and attempted to do me harm for payment by the us treasury.

Somehow I tend to take that personal.

that is pointless! the facts maam, nothing but the fact in the language of the realm. Just irritated that I have to pit my bill fold against them when we all know why they are doing this. they do not want, will not allow me 100% disability without a knockdown dragout fight. So be it.

thanks for pointing the flaws out. but I am not depending on fed law as such, or any bit of folk law, but that did get what i wanted from the Dr, being in the front door and engaged in a conversation with the goal of winning a claim with the VA, and how bad could that be?

thanks, for all the help

BTW I got that form off this site at the direction of another member so I thought that would be sufficient. i see that is not the case. I should have done more research before I handed it to her rather than now reapproach her with additional requests.

My bad as they say but got a handle on it now.

Edited September 23, 2009 by cannoncocker

[carlie]

cannon,

I have always found it best to keep the emotional crap we

deal with - out of claims adjudication, the exception being

MH disabilities and how they related to your military service

and how they have and do, effect your daily life.

I work on my claim issues and start out a draft about like this.

EXAMPLE ONLY - CONTAINS NO TRUTH:

Name & Claim #

Address

Date

Please consider this as my official Notice of Disagreement on

the Rating Decision dated XX/XX/XXXX.

This decision states in the Reasons and Bases Section that my

C&P examiner said due to the fact I have all 4 limbs that service

connection is less likely than not related to my military service.

I feel your C&P examiner needs to get her eyes examined as surely

as she can not notice part of my left arm missing. The C&P examiner must

just be a blind idiot and is in-competent to do something as important

as examining veterans for disability. How can the VA give credence

to an obtuse pig like this and your decision is just as poor.

I have had a hard time feeding myself all these years and yet you

state I am not disabled. I was there whether the records show it or not

and I am tired of the VA saying I am lying and this did not happen.

Why do you keep trampling on veterans like this while congress keeps

getting pay increases.

You are all rotten stinking thugs and will do anything to get your bonuses.

I will keep fighting you until you have to admit the truth and grant

service connection for my disabilities.

OK - that's an example of my first rough draft - by the time I send it to

VA it is TOTALLY different ~ LOL.

carlie

[cannoncocker]

First thing I would like to mention if I haven't. i live in the NC mountains and have to use satellite internet, and I will be the first to tell you it sucks. better than dial-up but not by much so if there are like 2 hour lags between reply-response that's it!

What did Hillary say when they had Bill's back against the wall with the Monica saga?

Stand back, take a deep breath...

I got it. Whatever works to remove the emotion from the equation. Rule 2. You are responsible for you. you can get excellent advise and direction here but when it is all said and done, you are responsible for you and the actions you take. you are getting exactly

a. advise

b. experience

But ultimately you are responsible for the decisions you make. I lost sight of that and that is on me.

I appreciate you putting this in perspective and will follow that.

I am still holding on to that concept that Federal Health and Occupational Health Standards (beings as how the Army trained me in exactly that) plays a part in my claim. I will let you know how that in particular works out. All of that is in the CFR's. No emotion. Rules enacted to protect us.

Much more importantly is my upcoming interaction with the DRO. I have no experience with that so I would have probaly come out ready to fight when that would evidently been 180 degrees out from what I should do! Please understand that all my contacts with VSO's and the VA have been either negative/confrontational/lies/no return of calls etc... so I just naturally expected the DRO would be the same. It is very important that I know now that I am trying to win him over rather than beat him down and basically fight using suprise or any weapon at my disposale. Those are 2 completely different battle plans.

If I want to win him over I will get the data together and send it to him with a rationale to make it clear what my intentions are. If it were a battle of the kind i am accustomed to I would gather my data and arrive with it in my hand then begin my presentation.

Naturally I would by nature prefer to have a civil discourse with no suprises. But What I really want is to win.

I will try not to directly dispute Dr. King (VA Hit Man) but will try to indrectly dispute his finds with Dr. Burke's (IMO) findings by enumerating her findings in the exact order he enumerated his.

We could go on and on. I got the idea and will follow it, get my dr. to be specific with dates and references to SMR's in her findings or add to the sheet she already signed.

Thanks for all the help! Will try to win the DRO over not make an advesary!

Edited September 23, 2009 by cannoncocker