Md Statements: Opinions

[Guest jstacy]

I have been reading the board and have come across the following.

You have a MD statement that says it is at least as likely as not, is most likely, was due to.

I received a SC for a least as likely as not ( 50 percent sure)

I have 2 C@P opinion from MD not NP that state most likely. (75 percent)

I have 1 from same doctor that says was due to. (100 percent)

I have no decision because this has been going from the rating team to the development team back and forth. I feel confident I am going to win, But they are really messing with these claims.

Has anyone ever been denied and had a MD statement at the least as likely and and over opinion?

Edited August 30, 2006 by jstacy

[Dorothy Kansas]

I have been reading the board and have come across the following.

You have a MD statement that says it is at least as likely as not, is most likely, was due to.

I received a SC for a least as likely as not ( 50 percent sure)

I have 2 C@P opinion from MD not NP that state most likely. (75 percent)

I have 1 from same doctor that says was due to. (100 percent)

I have no decision because this has been going from the rating team to the development team back and forth. I feel confident I am going to win, But they are really messing with these claims.

Has anyone ever been denied and had a MD statement at the least as likely and and over opinion?

Yes! I have been denied for more than likely and least likely as not. Rationales and supporting medical treatise were also given by Specialist.

[Dorothy Kansas]

Was this nosy busy body an MD. If not ask the DRO what the credentials are in order to make a diagnosis.

B) It was a NP and a new 2 year fellowship graduate who by the way never examined me.

[Guest jstacy]

That is the reason they use NP's as C@P examiners. They can get some MD quack to over ride any NP decision. I dont like C@P's with NP's

[Hoppy]

Istacy,

The only problem I have with the way this form is filed out is that the answer to records reviewed is "YES". I think it would be better to actually note the date of each report and the doctor or the hospital that generated the report. I believe this is the format used by the VA in their SOC's.

I was denied because the RO claimed that an the examiner did not review one post service report. I appeal stating that the form provided by the VA (2001) did not require that the doctor list the reports he read. Additionally I argued that the doctor did in fact read the post service report that the RO referred to. The doctor did not mention the post service report because it was for a diffeternty and unrelated condition.

I demanded that the RO schedule a C&P with an examiner and make sure the C&P doctor read all the reports and listed them. The VA did nothing for two more years. Eventually I was able to prove by resubmitting the post service report the RO thought my doctor should have read. I went line by line and showed the RO how the symptom patterns were totally different than the disease I sought to have service connected. I explained that they were enforcing an intercurrent injury by failing to give weight to my doctors report. The evidence supporting the intercurrent injury was for a different and unrelated condition and that the RO failed to get a report showing that they were related or that their was a nexus to support the intercurrent injury. Eventually I was service connected.

Long Story short the VA will use any tactic and any loophole available to delay some claims.

[Guest jstacy]

There is another page that lists the records as military, VA, private as available and reviewed.

I know they will try anything to get out of it. It does not surprise me to hear what they do for I know first hand.

[mssoup1]

See my reply under your other posting.

mssoup1