My Nod For Forum Review.

[SpcDearman]

Here is what I will be sending on Monday. i want to have the entire weekend for you guys to opine.

TO: Department of Veterans Affairs

This is a Notice of Disagreement with your rating decision dated 11-1-12 which denied my claim for bilateral shoulder, bilateral knee, and lung condition . I request my claim be afforded a de Novo review by a Decision Review Officer and a Statement of Case (SOC) be prepared and forwarded to me. I also hereby request all copies of my Service Medical Records to be used for review by my private physician.

Thank you.

Disgruntled Vet. (ok i might put my real name here lol)

[SpcDearman]

" I stated that this tank accident AGGRAVATED my shoulder injury due to it already being injured. My denial was based on "did the tank accident in 1994 cause the disability. I know this due to the RO sending another question to the examiner that if it was preexisting could that tank accident have AGGRAVATED an injury. Why would they ask this? Preexisting injuries can be service connected if they are agrravated by military service and it is clear and unmistakable that it is not a natural progression of the disease."

I see murkiness that may not bode well.

Can you be a tad more specific please?

[deanbrt]

I realize the technical argument but I think a secondary service aggravation to a non-service related injury is a steeper hill. I think others better versed than me might say you need an IMO that firmly connects the dots.

[SpcDearman]

I realize the technical argument but I think a secondary service aggravation to a non-service related injury is a steeper hill. I think others better versed than me might say you need an IMO that firmly connects the dots.

I agree with you on this. i have another question since you guys asked for my denial. I actually am looking at my records (minus c-file) as i type. Can you explain this form me? I do not like it.

to answer the literal question, the veterans current chest findings are more likely than not related to the cxr findings that occurred while in service BUT it is less likely than no that he has an active process and its also less likely than not that the original findings during his active service were related to any in service injury, illness, or exposure.

[SpcDearman]

I agree with you on this. i have another question since you guys asked for my denial. I actually am looking at my records (minus c-file) as i type. Can you explain this form me? I do not like it.

to answer the literal question, the veterans current chest findings are more likely than not related to the cxr findings that occurred while in service BUT it is less likely than no that he has an active process and its also less likely than not that the original findings during his active service were related to any in service injury, illness, or exposure.

I apologize but I could not leave this off after reading further.

[i am asked to render an opinion, however after a review of the STR's i cannot render the requested opinion as there was a lack of diagnosis in the str's regarding his shoulder and his knee. there was one entry in basic training in 1992 (which i have stated numerous times to these people that it was not totally the tank issue that brought it up but rather the period where it got really bad) stating that he "hurt his shoulder ", but it didnt say how or which shoulder. Then another stated that he hurt his left shoulder and knee in a tank accident while in active duty. However, it did not say which knee and did not say how his shoulder was injured and no diagnosis was given. So there is no real diagnosises relating his left knee or his shoulders in his str's to allow me to render a requested opinion based on my diagnosis.]

This entry was rather odd to me.

[Berta]

Do you have an established and documented nexus that you had an inservice Tank accident?

[SpcDearman]

Do you have an established and documented nexus that you had an inservice Tank accident?

Yes ma'am i do. I was medevac'd in a black hawk. It was the first time i actually got in one and didn't rappel out. They have not denied this event happened.