Denial Due To Probative Value Vrs Least Likely As Not

[KDM]

What is worth more..

1 three VA Doctors Opinons in your favor one whos is A recent CNP Doctor stating that it is least as likely as not ie fifty fifty probability the othor two Doctors are you personell VA Doctors who have worked with you

2 Or A Older CNP By a Doctor that state he thinks you are a liar and manipulater etc that The RO states has more prbative value so he denies your case

3 I Appealed Case asked for it to be seen by a DRO first and applied a reg 3.102 reasonable doubt doctrine to it any opinions please

[71M10]

Did they list the other three opinions/exams as evidence in the evidence listing on the decision??? Is this for SC or rating level for a condition already connected? If it is a rating question one could argue the more recent C&P is more representative of the actual condition at the present time and if you have been receiving treatment that should also be considered. As for the older C&P doctor you need to go through his exam with a microscope. If he states something as fact that is not supported by the evidence. I had a C&P examiner state no RVH when the echocardiogram in my file clearly stated RVH present. Often these hatchet job docs are pretty sloppy in their work and they contradict themselves between findings and conclusions. Find those errors and refute them (yourself if they are glaring errors or by a another medical exam/opinion that addresses the inconsistancy). Quoting 3.102 only without specifically attacking why the original exam was incorrect is a fairly week position.

[john999]

I had a NP say I did not have heart disease on C&P exam based on nothing but her unsupported opinion. On appeal after getting some testing I got 60% rating as CAD secondary to DMII (AO). I have had so many hatchet jobs done by incompetent, hostile and biased C&P doctors it is a laugh. I expect that all claims will result in me having to get IMO/IME. This is what we save our money for if we want to keep or get new ratings.

[Philip Rogers]

I had a NP say I did not have heart disease on C&P exam based on nothing but her unsupported opinion. On appeal after getting some testing I got 60% rating as CAD secondary to DMII (AO). I have had so many hatchet jobs done by incompetent, hostile and biased C&P doctors it is a laugh. I expect that all claims will result in me having to get IMO/IME. This is what we save our money for if we want to keep or get new ratings.

I agree John. At our age (65+) it's virtually impossible to not have heart disease, if we live in the USA and eat an American diet. Our veins and arteries have to look like the inside of plumbing, in an old house, with the buildup of plaque, etc. I've yet to see a cardiologist thru the VA. I have a private appt, in 2 wks, w/a private cardiologist, at my expense. jmo

pr

[KDM]

Thanks guys

1 answer 71M10 quiestion yes the three Doctors opinions wheres entered as evedence including the recent CNP (Least Likely as not) yet the RO still used the Older CNP as the Bases for denial as probative value.

2. It is a Secondary Conditon that is a mental COnditon to the first