Is This Categorical Dismissal Of Lay Evidence

[mos1833]

below is what i think is a true injustic

this claim is back at the court again after being denied using this as evidence against my claim, i keep asking my self (can they do this)

from what i know and read about lay evidence, this is just wrong,the medical opinions never considered the lay evidence either.

what do you think ?

The mere contentions of the Veteran, no matter how well-meaning, without supporting medical evidence that would etiologically relate his current complaints with an event or incurrence while in service, are not of sufficient probative value to rebut the February 2002, January 2009, and July 2010 medical opinions. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995); Lathan v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 359 (1995); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 144 (1994); King v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 19 (1993). In this case, there is no evidence that the Veteran, his family, or friend have any medical expertise, or are otherwise qualified to render a medical opinion. Consequently, his statements and the statements of his family and a friend, without some form of objective medical corroboration, are not deemed to be of significant probative value.

[mos1833]

thanks 71m10 ,

i filed a cue in 2002, through the vfw ,and they never even mentioned it.

[mos1833]

thanks to you all

here; is some more of why i cant win.

below was in the 2009 denial

The Board has also considered the statements and sworn
testimony of the Veteran and his sister and the statements of
his family and a service buddy. Specifically, in an August
2001 personal hearing, he testified that he injured his back
during service and continued to have problems since
discharge. He noted that he was treated for back pain in
July 1970 and was placed on light duty for the remainder of
his military service. His sister reflected that she talked
with him or his wife by telephone after he was discharged and
knew he was having problems with his back. He acknowledged
that he did not seek any treatment for low back pain after
service separation but used pain pills and alcohol for pain
management. Further, the Board has reviewed statements from
his wife and mother-in-law submitted in the late 1980s to the
effect that the Veteran hurt his lower back in service and
continued to have pain. More recently, a service buddy
indicated that the Veteran injured his back during active
duty and had experienced pain since.

After considering the Veteran's testimony and the other
statements in support of his claim, the Board notes that
neither the Veteran, his family, nor a friend have the
medical expertise to clinically establish that his current
complaints resulted from an injury during active military
duty. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992).
Despite his testimony, the service medical records are
negative for a chronic low back disorder. Further, post-
service medical evidence is devoid of complaints related to
the Veteran's low back until a work-related injury several
years after service separation. The mere contentions of the
Veteran, no matter how well-meaning, without supporting
medical evidence that would etiologically relate his current
complaints with an event or incurrence while in service, are
not of sufficient probative value to rebut the February 2002
and January 2009 medical opinions. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.
App. 498 (1995); Lathan v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 359 (1995);
Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 144 (1994); King v.
Brown, 5 Vet. App. 19 (1993). In this case, there is no
evidence that the Veteran, his family, or friend have any
medical expertise, or are otherwise qualified to render a
medical opinion. Consequently, his statements and the
statements of his family and a friend, without some form of
objective medical corroboration, are not deemed to be of
significant probative value.

[free_spirit_etc]

Would it help to ask your Congressman to assist you in getting a copy of the phantom discharge physical? Explain that it has been used to deny your claims and that you have consistently asked to be provided a copy of the document and have never received one. I would think they would either have to send a copy to your Congressman or tell your Congressman that it can't be found.

However, I still wonder if they would say that just because it cannot be found now doesn't mean it wasn't ever in your file. And since their examiners "relied" on the document, and they found their examiners to be credible - they would just rely on what the examiners reported that it said anyway.

[mos1833]

thanks free

i thought i had um with the orders from the court in the remand orders,but they just skiped it again and quickly denied again, saying the complied with the orders.

[mos1833]

i think whats below provides a good view,of why i think this was a categorical dismissal of all my lay evidence.

-----

In addition, after considering the Veteran's testimony and the other statements in support of his claim, the Board notes that neither the Veteran, his family, nor a friend have the medical expertise to clinically establish that his current complaints resulted from an injury during active military duty. Despite his testimony, the service medical records are negative for a chronic low back disorder. Further, post-service medical evidence is devoid of complaints related to the Veteran's low back until a work-related injury many years after service separation. The mere contentions of the Veteran, no matter how well-meaning, without supporting medical evidence that would etiologically relate his current complaints with an event or incurrence while in service, are not of sufficient probative value to rebut the February 2002, January 2009, and July 2010 medical opinions. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995); Lathan v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 359 (1995); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 144 (1994); King v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 19 (1993). In this case, there is no evidence that the Veteran, his family, or friend have any medical expertise, or are otherwise qualified to render a medical opinion. Consequently, his statements and the statements of his family and a friend, without some form of objective medical corroboration, are not deemed to be of significant probative value.

Given that there was no evidence of a chronic low back disorder in service, no complaints related to the Veteran's low back for several years after discharge, and the opinions by a VA examiners-reviewers that there is no causal relationship between the Veteran's current complaints and military service, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. For all these reasons, the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is denied.

[free_spirit_etc]

Others may have a different opinion - but your best shot now would probably be to reopen with new evidence -- an IMO -- and still keep working at building a case for an earlier effective date once it is granted. jmho though...