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

[Commander Bob]

UPDATE:

All moot for the moment. IRIS response says another DRO rendered a decision on 9/22. No info as to what decision is but I have no doubt's it was straight denial.

.

What a classic case of "Hurry up and wait". We are all so familiar with that experience, it almost seems natural. My most positive thoughts are with you. Remembering that sooner or later, this too will pass.

[*Bergie*]

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?!?!?! B)

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." B)

Then lower down it says:

(NONSTANDARD EXAMINERS MEDICAL OPINION)

say whut??? B)

Does anyone know what these people(the C&P doctors) get by doing this to us? I just went with my 70 year old Vietnam vet father for his C&P exam and was appalled by the crappy exam he got. I have also been the unforunate recipient of this and see by this and many other posts that it just seems to happen way too much. What can we do about this I'd really like to know.

Regards,

Bergie

[cannoncocker]

pfffttt.....if they're gonna deny a vet's claim anyway at least they could get the satisfaction of knocking the taste out of a rater's mouth. B)

It never even ocurred to me that you were serious about the violence bit. i just thought it was a joke, but it is true you can't tell how someone else might react. i will play it say from now on and bow out to be sure I don't do any harm.

the VA is good enough at that with no help from me.

I got the neurologist to add the smr's stff on my IMO but they have already made their decision so it's all moot. 2 or 3 appeals down the roaqd it may help but the DRO has his rubber stamp out already. You can bet on it. I have the C&P guy on paper in writing lying and there is zip that can be done but accept it and appeal.

better luck than I have had to everybody, I hope!

[Pete53]

My statement about violence stands but no need for you to take time off Cannon.If you do than you are welcome to come back as far as I am concerned. I realize that the violence was a joke but unfortunately others may not.

There are Members on Hadit that are limited for contact with VA People just cause they said something or did something the swarmy VA employee took offense too.

[cannoncocker]

My statement about violence stands but no need for you to take time off Cannon.If you do than you are welcome to come back as far as I am concerned. I realize that the violence was a joke but unfortunately others may not.

There are Members on Hadit that are limited for contact with VA People just cause they said something or did something the swarmy VA employee took offense too.

You know it had not ocurred to me the va was monitoring this board, but tell me that doesn't make sense. now we have to monitor our words here too? That is sick!

Pete, your'e a good guy and glad you are here! My younger brother just had a double anuerism, money or insurance isn't an issue but mortality is so I'm not really hitting on all eight cylinders, or I guess 4 now, but I am just over reacting, but blieve that I don't want to play any part in someones misery or poor reaction to it. sounds like he's got a handle on it and took it like it was meant. Just trying to lighten things up.

Edited September 24, 2009 by cannoncocker

[JamesBreckenridge]

"pfffttt.....if they're gonna deny a vet's claim anyway at least they could get the satisfaction of knocking the taste out of a rater's mouth"

Ahem. B) And I wouldn't say we "monitor" the board. Individuals on our own time who have inside knowledge of how things work do come here to try and help from time to time. I can't contribute much, because this really is an excellent resource. The old hands usually respond with the right answer (or close enough to right for government work as they say), so I don't have much to add. Of course, sometimes I don't know the answer either, and don't want to risk confusing anyone.

I understand the frustration. Getting a bad exam back sucks, both for the vet and for the rater. I've gotten back exams that I was sure were going to lead to grants, but the doctor refused to give a positive nexus opinion. If the exam is adequate, there's not much I can do. The veteran on the other hand can tell us what's wrong with the exam "He just talked to me, I never even took my shirt off, he never actually examined me!" and they can get another exam, and/or they can get an independant medical opinion. I treat IMOs on a level playing field with the VA doctors. If the private doctor reviews the same records, and backs up his rationale for why HE think the condition is secondary to a SC condition (ESPECIALLY if he's a specialist), I call it a tie and resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the vet.