Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Another Bogus C&p

Rate this question


Hoppy

Question

  • HadIt.com Elder

I have been assisting a veteran who was diagnosed with GERD 9 months after discharge. The veteran has continued treatment with the VAMC since discharge and has received diagnoses of GERD and prescribed medication continuously. He has had several Barium swallows and UGI exams showing the presence of reflux. He went to a C&P and the C&P examiner wrote a report saying there was no objective evidence of GERD. His claim was denied based on this bogus C&P. I got involved and wrote a letter in support of the claim and got the C&P thrown out and the BVA remanded for a new C&P. I was disappointed because I thought there was sufficient records to show continuity since discharge. However, it was some progress to get a new C&P.

The remand stated that there was evidence of a current diagnosis of GERD and ask the new exam to address whether or not there was a nexus. The veteran was scheduled two exams. he went to a barium swallow exam then ½ hour later he saw the c&p examiner who was supposed to address a nexus.

The C&P examiner said there was no current diagnosis of GERD “at this moment”. !/2 hour earlier the barium test confirmed the diagnosis of GERD. The C&P examiner failed to address nexus as asked in the remand..

The C&P examiner offered no logic disputing the ongoing diagnoses of GERD provided by treating clinicians. Rather he said that the current subjective symptoms could be caused by a temporary flare of esophagitis.

The fact that he said the current symptoms “Could” be caused by a temporary flair of esophagitis does not sufficiently rebut the established diagnosis of GERD. Additionally, the word could is not sufficient to establish that it is more likely than not that the temporary flare is a dominating symptom pattern.

These doctors are idiots. The inability to establish a diagnosis “at the moment” because the symptoms “could be caused” by a temporary flare of esophagitis is a total cop out. I guess the entire history provided by treating conditions has no weight because this C&P examiner came up with an explanation based on events that “could” be occurring. By the way esophagitis does not show that a symptom is regurgitation. I have been reading a lot of GERD cases where the BVA has been throwing out bogus C&P exams. We are going to try and get another C&P or an IMO.

Hoppy

100% for Angioedema with secondary conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 10
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

After I meet with the Congressman/womans Aid, if I get some positive feedback I will be looking for Veterans in my area who have had similar experiences and documented medical records to prove the C&P examiners ignored their medical history, C file, or what the Veteran relayed to them.

If we can work together showing people in a position to actually make something happen, I do believe we can put a dent in this fraudulant practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

What can be done??

Several years ago I was assisting a veteran who had 17 pages of detailed SMR notes showing the veterans first episode of a “panic attack”. The notes continued showing re-occurring panic attacks for another year and a half before he was diagnosed with a personality disorder and discharged without treatment or benefits. The military doctors said there was no treatment for the condition. The veteran later went to a VAMC and was properly diagnosed as having panic disorder.

The BVA has many cases in which this condition was misdiagnosed as a personality disorder and it was later corrected and the veteran was service connected. Thus, I decided to get involved.

The VA sent the veteran to a contracted “forensic psychiatrist” for a C&P exam.

It is a long story that I have posted before. To sum it up the psychiatrist made statements about etiology that contradicted known medical principals. The C&P examiner invented false evidence about symptom patterns that did not conform to the recorded history.

Basically had this evidence been submitted to a court it would have been considered “extrinsic fraud”.

I decided to try and cause this doctor some problems. This is what I found out.

The VA has internal monitoring of the quality of C&P exams. They had considered allowing veterans too file complaints to this monitoring program. However, the complaint feature was not adopted. The only resolution identified by the service organizations was to file a complaint to the director of the hospital where the exam was scheduled. Thus, remedies are within the discretion of each individual hospital administrator. I found no established policy addressing poor quality C&P exams.

I could not find any requirement that there be any ongoing recording of rejected or discredited C&P exams. Thus, there is no paper trail that would lead to clinicians who make a life time of writing bad exams. In a functional system any clinician who presents incompetent or false information for the purpose of adjudication should be disciplined. More importantly every claim the clinician has submitted evidence on in their entire career should be reviewed.

A system that was required by federal law to monitor the actions of law enforcement officers needs to be adopted and applied to any individual capable of providing evidence under administrative law. Recording of original inadequate or false actions of the clinicians and disciplinary actions needs to be standardized throughout the entire system. Such recordings need to follow the clinician throughout their entire career and be subject to public review. The public review consisted of selected members from the public who had access to the records. Tell this to your congressman.

I have an entire file full of bogus C&P exams

Edited by Hoppy

Hoppy

100% for Angioedema with secondary conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

It turns out that after closer review of the C&P that the C&P doctor did not read the VAMC treatment notes or a DBQ provided by the veterans primary care doctor. The C&P examiner only noted a review of the SMR and post service endocscopies and blood studies.

Although the veteran had been diagnosed by the VAMC primary care doctor with GERD seven years ago and the veteran has been on omeprazole for many years the C&P examiner failed to check the box indicating a prior diagnosis of GERD.

There is no requirement of the rating schedule that GERD must be confirmed by every single UGI or endoscopy.

Hoppy

100% for Angioedema with secondary conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Lebro earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • spazbototto earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Paul Gretza earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Troy Spurlock went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • KMac1181 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 0 replies
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 replies
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use