63Sierra - New Member Looking For Guidance

[63SIERRA]

Troy I would like your opinion on a claim. I was in an on post car accident while on active duty. The civillian wife hit me in the rear with her car, into the back of my car at a redlight, she had break failure. her husband had did a not so good break job on thier car the day before. I was in alot of pain, and went on sick call. I was diagnosed initially with a fracture pars and spodylolysis and put in a back brace and put on a dead mans profile . I went back in a week, saw another doc, and he said back was broke, but not in accident. He put on the medical record . " old seat belt injury " with a question mark behind it. like he wasnt sure. So ok, I was on active duty for abt a year after that. with frequent visits to sick call with back pain complaints. all documented. So when my tour was up, I filed for several different contentions, with back condition as one of them. The va deny me in 1996 said the back condition know as pars defect, with sponylolisis is a congenital defect, and no related to millitary service. I didnt think to much of it at the time, burt recently started research. I looked thru my active duty medical records, and another doctor diagnosoed my back condition as spondylolysis thesis. I recently went to a chiropractor, and his diagnosis is L-5 spondylolisis thesis. He showed me the xrays and told me my back had been jacked up for a long time, and would take years to get results, and there basically were not alot of good options. He told me what happens is the pars bones, that hold the vertebre in thier proper alignment, can fracture from either blunt force inpact such as car accidents. or if they are weak for whatever reason. Then it lets the vertebre shift forward, out of alignment. Then u start getting nerves pinched an pain, such as I have now, and have been having since the accident while on active duty. So I sent the chiropractic diagnosis to the VA. I also sent a copy of the in service medical record where the doctor diagnosed me with spondylolysid thesis. Which is alot different that just spondylolysis. I had never had, nor complained of any back pain, or problems anytime before the on post car accident. I have had pain and problems with my back ever since the accident, and recieve pain meds from the va for it even now. So my questions are, being I filed for a back condition as a generic term, and the VA assigned the wrong diagnosis, and denied me on that wrong diagnosis,. do I have grounds for a CUE claim. ? if not, should I at least win my current appeal?

2. How can I find out, exactly what evidence the Va had at the time they adjudicated my claim , in other words, how can I find out if they had access to the medical slip where the doctor clearly wrote. " sponylolislis thesis. (I have sent the va a copy with my appeal, so they have it now, but I want to know if they had it then.

Edited September 16, 2013 by 63SIERRA

[63SIERRA]

W

Edited October 2, 2013 by 63SIERRA

[63SIERRA]

Also what abt the fact that they initially judged the claim on the wrong diagnosis, and continue to do so even now. In my in ervice medical records it clearly is written, SPONDYLOLYSIS THESIS. In my most recent diagnosis from a private doctor, who knew nothing abt the VA diagnosis, or any medical history, clearly diagnoses SPONDYLOLYSIS THESIS. He told me many, many doctors dont understand the HUGE difference between the Thesis part, and its importance.

The Va just continues to ignore the 300 lb gorrilla in the room. They keep going to the lesser, medical description to downplay the claim.

Its almost like someone walking into a doctors office, getting xrays and finding they have bone cancer in thier femur. and the doctor say, hey,, look you have an ingrown toenail, lets jut focus on that, and ignore the worse problem.

The RO cannot be that stupid.

Edited October 2, 2013 by 63SIERRA

[63SIERRA]

just went thru my c-file again, evidently I either refiled or reopened in 3/25/96 because I found a denial letter

DESCISION :

Service connection for pars defect with spondylolsis is denied.

reasons and basis:

The veteran has submitted additional service medical records. Evidence of record shows he was placed on physical profile twice in dec 93. He was seen on 3 other occasions on 01 -09-95 , 01- 18-95 and 04-12-95. On report of medical history given on 06-14-95 veteran indicated he had recurring back pain, stiffness, and numbness in his legs when sitting for long period of time . The conditon identified as Pars defect L4 , with spondylolysis is considered a congenital or developmental defect which is unrelated to millitary service and not subject to service connection . There were no medical records submitted to establish that the veteran had anything other than a congenital or developmental abnormality which means the veteran was either born with this conditon or it developed naturally . therefore entitlement to service connection for a back conditon remains denied.

They sure took the time to sterilize the reasons and basis, they never mentioned to car accident, they never mentioned the fact that I was put in a back brace for a week, they never mention the fact that I complained of ongoing back pain until the day I left the service and its documented. They seem to like to take snippets of information out of context, and form a very bland conclusion. where they say >

"""There were no medical records submitted to establish that the veteran had anything other than a congenital or developmental abnormality which means the veteran was either born with this conditon or it developed naturally "".

is a lie or mistake, because previous records that were submitted and records attached to the denial letter in my C-FILE had records of the MVA. MVA ruin peoples back every day, so for them to just not even mention the fact of the accident, and ongoing pain forever after, shows how they go out of thier way, to hide and discount facts.

Edited October 2, 2013 by 63SIERRA

[63SIERRA]

""If they raise the issue of a congenital condition that rebuts the presumption of soundness then the argument can get very complex. My statements about interpretation of the bone scans and xray is getting into an area that may not even come into play.""

would " possible old seat belt injury?"" not refute the congenital or developmental argument?

Seems to me, old sawbones acknowledges and injury, when he states, possible fracture at L-3, Old seat belt injury?

How can they have it both ways, A seat belt injury is not a birth defect?

How many times can they spin the bottle and they get to kiss the girl, and I get the frog? Do they win every time. ?

[free_spirit_etc]

There is some interesting stuff in this thread about congenital defects

[63SIERRA]

thanks Im going to check it out, right now.,