hypertension No Comment - Please Read

[shag]

this may need to be read twice. It is from a vet's remand from the BVA. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AMC should send the Veteran's claims folder to the examiner who conducted the April 2004 and December 2004 VA heart examinations, or if the examiner is no longer available, a suitable replacement, to request that he prepare an addendum to his report. The Veteran need not be re-examined unless an examination is deemed necessary. If a physical examination is deemed necessary, all indicated testing should be accomplished. The claims files should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. With reference to supporting data, the examiner is asked to offer a complete rationale for his opinions, expressed in the examinations referenced above, that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's hypertension or heart disease are related to or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected PTSD. Hard to believe that one.

Edited March 26, 2010 by shag

[broncovet]

Altho I agree with Berta's interpretation "no medical rationale", the problem is not with the rules, it is with the fact the VA doesnt follwo them. And they wont, either, unless you force them by going through the appeals system.

[vperl]

OK...I'll bite. I read this over 4 times..then I looked up 'Remand' - An appeal returned to the regional office or medical facility where the claim originated - to be sure I wasn't completely crazy in my understanding.

Maybe I'm full of it but it sounds to me like BVA didn't like what they were looking at in this vet's claim. I know a remand means more waiting, but if the outcome is positive for the vet it could be worth it. In this case, let's say the claim had one or more IMO's stating that it was 'more likely than not' and this one examiner said it 'is less likely than not'. Isn't it possible that the BVA is sending it back to 'offer a complete rationale for his opinions, expressed in the examinations referenced above, that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's hypertension or heart disease are related to or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected PTSD' because they think the examiner didn't offer proper documentation and his statement doesn't support the evidence in the rest of the claim? They say they want an addendum, which tells me the examiner didn't show or give proper rationale for his statement. I've read it and read it and it really sounds to me like they are giving this vet the benefit of the doubt on this one, as they are supposed to. Call me crazy...I can take it. Of course, one could say that they should simply weigh the positive IMO over the examiners....but maybe there were no IMO's and they are simply looking over the evidence...all food for thought.

Hey, I'm new at this!! I can think positive.

***********************

just TO MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD, " your CRAZY" AND HAVE FLAT FEET