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.

[free_spirit_etc]

Dear Congressman so and so,

I would like to request your assistance in getting a copy of a document from the VA concerning my claims with them. VA decisions on my claim keep referring to a my discharge physical examination. However, as I never received a physical examination when I separated from the military, I have questioned their reliance on this document. I would certainly like to assure that records about me maintained by a Federal Agency be accurate. I have repeatedly requested a copy of my discharge physical from the VA, but have never received a copy, despite my repeated requests. Would it be possible for you to intervene on my behalf and assist me in obtaining a copy of this from the VA?

Again, I am afraid even if they can't find a copy they will still try to rely on the fact that their "credible" examiners stated the exam said ____. And it looks like the court said it didn't matter if there was a copy of the exam in your file or not.

??? -- kind of odd that they wouldn't think an exam that relied on inaccurate facts would not be considered "inadequate."

BUT -- it still might not hurt to push them on that issue.

Others (who are much smarter than I am about such things) might have a different opinion though... But it is just a thought.

[free_spirit_etc]

MOS1833 - Do you have any of your SMRs? My husband's SMRs noted that a physical was done and a Form 2627 (Report of Medical Assessment) - extensive was completed. If your SMRs don't note that -- it could be one more link in the chain of evidence that there was no such exam.

[free_spirit_etc]

http://www.foia.gov/federal-records.html#deny

What is the Privacy Act?

The federal government compiles a wide range of information on individuals. For example, if you were ever in the military or employed by a federal agency, there should be records of your service. If you have ever applied for a federal benefit or received a student loan guaranteed by the government, you are probably the subject of a file. There are records on every individual who has ever paid income taxes or received a check from Social Security or Medicare.

The Privacy Act, passed by Congress in 1974, establishes certain controls over what personal information is collected by the federal government and how it is used. This law guarantees three primary rights:

(1) the right to see records about oneself, subject to the Privacy Act’s exemptions;
(2) the right to amend a nonexempt record if it is inaccurate, irrelevant, untimely, or incomplete; and
(3) the right to sue the government for violations of the statute, such as permitting unauthorized individuals to read your records.

What information can I request under the Privacy Act?

The Privacy Act applies only to records about individuals maintained by agencies in the executive branch of the federal government. It applies to these records only if they are in a “system of records,” which means they are retrieved by an individual’s name, Social Security number, or some other personal identifier.

[mos1833]

free thanks again

i have another thread going right now , its called little mistakes.

this is more or less one of those little mistakes.

they refer to the correct form for the exit exam.

but its whats they say is on the form thats wrong.

they say it shows that i had a normal spine exam,

when in fact, its not even signed,and where it is supposed to indencate fitness nothing is checked.

then they say that form is silent , for any disabilities there right , its nearly blank, its the form 88

i"ll try and post it, forgive my spelling , thanks

[Hoppy]

Thought I would update this thread. I lost track of this thread when I was having medical problems last November and did not go online for 7 months. It sounds like things did not go well. Prior to going off line I cited Savage V. Gober as a possible way to get service connected. As indicated below there is a new case law overruling the case I cited. Basically what this caused for the veteran is that he must get a nexus statement.

Previously, case law allowed for continuity of symptomatology to be used as a basis to grant service connection for diseases not contained in the list of chronic diseases at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). See Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 448, 495-96(1997). Recently the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013) explicitly overruled this principle, holding that continuity of symptomatology could establish service connection only for the disorders specifically listed as chronic at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) but not for other disorders which might be chronic in a medical sense, much less for non-chronic disorders.

[mos1833]

conserdition.pdf

above is part of my last denial,

here is what i think is a wrong decision ,they didnt even consider

my lay evidence,because of the seperation exam which they say says my back was normal at seperation.but there is no such document,

Edited February 27, 2014 by mos1833