Final C&p Summary So Miserable

[Jayg]

Well, for those who have been following my C&P woes, I finally have got the, well, final C&P report. Not surprisingly it follows the same trail of falsification, misdirection, misstatement, omission and plain incompetence! And... as a clincher, they say that my claim for secondary conditions is not even possible!

First the ridiculous if superfluous.

They say I am a ' GED' but in fact I'm a high skool grad

They say I had a tonsillectomy in 1985 but 1960 would be closer to the mark.

There's other silly stuff like that.

I'm not gonna try and regale y'all with the whole bloody thing, just some of the high-lights...

The concede I have health problems in some degree that they have not done before. My doctor actually called and asked if I wanted back surgery. But at nexus they balked.

In a nutshell, they say that my problems are all the result of my employment. Not entirely unfeasible. I was a factory worker, machinist, and those trades are physically demanding. I just hold that my health followed a path already laid. They say it's not possible. More on that in a moment.

One of my problems is pes planus. They reported I have no evidence of abnormal shoe wear. See image of boots below. Those are what I wore to the exam. (This photo and pics of 2 other pair boots so worn are on file with VA btw)

Jayg - Sorry, but it was brought to my attention that this photo

has your name and SSA number on it, so I have deleted your

photo of the boots.

See if you can cover or edit out that portion

and re-post it, if you would like.

It is good evidence that your shoes certainly show a difference in

the wear patterns of the soles.

carlie

They reported I have no special shoe inserts or shoes. False. I have special inserts (and wore them that day) authorized by VA and part of my records!

Thanks Carlie! I grabbed the wrong pic!

Here's the right one...

Also at issue are ankle conditions. "He does not use an ankle brace." I do and sure did that exam day!

A lot of simple misdirection. I was given a scooter because I can't stand or walk for long but here they say I was given it "due to back pain."

Knees: Some of this is plain ridiculous. Under "summary of joint conditions" for my knees (as one example) Giving way is yes but instability is no- weakness is no but my records indicate concern over the weakness of my knees and inability to raise me- flare ups of joint disease is 'no' but I have severe debilitating arthritis and the condition does not interfere with the motion of the joint?!?!?!

Treatment is listed as medications, NSAIDS and there are no side effects- they forgot to mention the baclofen, tramodol, mirapex, methadone and what the heck do they mean there are no side effects when I have complained (on record) about dizzyness, balance problems, short term memory loss, dozing off...

Repeatedly... "are there effects of the problem on the usual daily activities?---"no" No. No? No?!?

All that is much of a muchness but, now, it gets really ugly. I tried to brow beat my doctor into making some sort of nexus comment sometime back and all he would go was to write:

"flat foot which contribute to lower back and knee pain."

Not worth much as it goes, actually, essentially useless but they must have felt it had some potential because their report says "a physician assistant student noted that his flat feet may have contributed to his low back and knee pain." annddd... "additionally, he did not claim any foot pain related to pes planus until seen by a physician's assistant student who related the left ankle and pes planus to his other orthopedic complaints. That statement was erroneously perpetuated in the computer system."

Whooeee! Is that a load of Crap!

I remember whenm that was entered. My doctor mis prescribed a dose of medicine to double it's correct strength. It was when mentioning that to him I asked for the comment. I have a copy of it on file for the first time on record in:

PROGRESS NOTE

STANDARD TITLE: PRIMARY CARE TEAM NOTE

DATE OF NOTE: MAR 11, 2008@08:27 ENTRY DATE: MAR 11, 2008@08:27:44

AUTHOR: LAST NAME, FIRST NAME EXP COSIGNER:

URGENCY: STATUS: COMPLETED

Then follows the day's notes concerning my visit.

Then it is "signed"

"/es/ First name Last name MD

Physician, Primary Care Service

signed: 3/11/2008 08:52"

No physician's student assistant anywhere on record this day. At least, that's how it printed out on April 10, 2008. I think I'll request records for that visit again.

Anyway, enough is too much. Here you have the idea of the whole sorry mess. I have a feeling some feces is going to impact upon the rotary oscillator but I don't know if I can avoid becoming buried in the fallout!

In closing, their summary says in every case that it is " not medically feasable" that my claimed conditions are secondary to my SC condition. (only the ankle. They omitt and reference to the flat feet or combined effect.)

However, I do have an IMO on file at VARO that states it is "more likely than not" that it is a result of SC conditions.

There are also many studies that say otherwise too.

For what it's worth, I am not the only one having problems out of this office. A friend with a long, similar history was remanded to BVA. His VARO is to neither hear or receive anything involved with his case, he is to send all his records to DC. He allowed BVA is already moving quicker and have granted his condition @ 0% but they're sending him out of area for another C&P.

Is that standard procedure?

One* last* thing...

The summary says "a standard medical opinion was requested.

Providers restatement of requested medical opinion. This is not the medical opinion itself." <_<

Then lower down it says:

(NONSTANDARD EXAMINERS MEDICAL OPINION)

say whut???

Edited September 24, 2009 by Jayg
Picvture of boots removed as it had SSN and Name on top of pic

[john999]

When I claimed IU I had two IMO's and was on SSD and federal disability retirement for my SC disability. The rater examined my IMO's with a microscope and found three words in a sentence to deny my IU claim even though I was 70%. I had to get another IMO to get IU and then another to get P&T. This was a total of four IMO's. The first IMO said I was totally and permanently disabled. The second said I was totally disabled due to SC condition. The second IMO mentioned a NSC condition. The VA said that even though I was 70% SC the real reason I could not work was the NSC condition. Two more IMO's to prove the NSC condition was not the reason I was totally disabled. I certainly believe that my VARO was looking for any reason to deny my IU claim.