How Does The Va Look At Auto Accidents?

[nyc-vet]

I have a few issues I need advice on. I am currently getting 40% for low back and 20% for neck plus other issues totaling 90%. Im trying to get secondary issues sciatica and headaches connected to the low back and neck. I submitted the claim 2 months ago but really didn't have any evidence except word of mouth and a few doctor visits to the VA ER for both headaches and sciatica.

2 months ago i was going to bank simply on those ER visit as enough evidence for secondary claims. But low and behold I get rear ended the other day and immediately the pain shot to my back, neck, down my left and i got a terrible headache that still lingers after a month.

I am now doing therapy, accupunture, chiropractor, etc.. 3 times a week for the past month. MRI shows bulging disk and herniated disk in neck and back. I don't rather to cry because I'm in more pain or to laugh because this might be my key to getting a nexus and increase for my neck.

With all that said, how will the VA view this accident? Do they view accidents after service as not service connected Or is it viewed as a worsened conditions?

I am also trying to get chronic fatigue secondary to back. I have no evidence but word of mouth. How do I prove this. I am drained everyday by constant body pains for the top of my head to the soles of my feet (literally).

[vaf]

The VA would regard the auto accident as an "intercurrent injury" which is discussed in 38 CRF 3.303 b, and then try to attribute as much of the disability to that incident as possible. I worked with a veteran, a reservist, who had been involved in an auto accident on his "off" time. However, in his case, he was applying for an increase in a rating for a back problem already service connected at 10%. It took a very strong IMO from his back doctor to defeat the VA's position that the veteran's back problems were solely attributed to the accident, and not to his military service. I gave the physician a copy of the C & P exam procedures for lumbar spine problems, as well as the rating criteria. He had to specifically address why the veteran's injuries that resulted from the car accident were irrelevant to the issue at hand in the claim. He also stated that had the veteran not had the degree of disability in his back to begin with, the injuries he suffered to his back in the car accident might not have been as significant as they were.

The question about whether you had MRI's or CT scans done prior to the accident is an excellent one.

[nyc-vet]

My gut is telling me they would try say it is "an intercurrent injury"also. As far as prior MRI question, my back and neck rating was only I believe based on xrays and rom and pain. In my c and p for increase a few years ago, they did state disk herniation with pain in legs. I don't know if that will be significant enough to prove sciatia.

[JamesBreckenridge]

3.303b is about service connection, not evaluation for an already service connected condition. The VA is not an insurance company. "Grant if you can, deny if you must." I challenge anyone to find a basis in the case law or Manual or CFR that says to deny an increase because of an intercurrent cause. Otherwise, the VA would be denying claims for increase all day long, because there's no way that service 20 years ago could cause an increase in a condition NOW.

Denial of service connection for a not service connected condition because it was caused by something after service like a car wreck or stepping in a gopher hole is something that's done all the time. But not claims for increase.

I'll try to find something tomorrow that should ease your fears a bit.

Edited October 8, 2009 by JamesBreckenridge

[Pete53]

I pretty much agree with James on this. My experience with VA is that it is the most liberal of all Disability Benefits.

[broncovet]

I have already posted that I agree with James, but I also agree with Carlie. In a nutshell, regardless of what the VA pretends, the Veteran is in an adversarial position with the VA from the get-go. The VA is looking for something to deny the claim, or award the minimum possible benefit, while the Veteran is looking to get it approved at the maximum possible benefit. These two opposing positions are adversarial in that the VA cant/wont possibly pay out all the claims rendered before it.

I think an example is that many Veterans have "good days" and "bad days". Even a severely depressed PTSD Veteran, for example, could indeed have a "good day". Oh, I dont know..maybe his wedding day was a "good day"...things went well..he had a great time, and maybe things went even better for him later on in the evening. However, maybe that year he had 364 "bad" days, where he had flashbacks, violent tempers, talked to people who were not there, and he tried to commit suicide just to releive the pain from what he saw.

So, the Veteran goes for a C and P exam, and the doc asks the Veteran how he feels. "Great just got married yesterday..wedding was superb, music was great, wife was beautiful. I have never been happier in my life. "

I probably do not recommend that he would maximize his benefits that way. He should probably not talk about his wedding day, and maybe say something about the other 364 days when he tried to kill his boss, got arrested for violent outbursts, and was sent to a mental hospital for 11 months, undergoing shock therapy. While what he said was also true, he could also relate some other truths that may just have a better result in obtaining his desired benefit. In other words, take Carlies advice and dont tell them about the car wreck unless they ask.