People Denied Claims For Back Injuries.

[63SIERRA]

something im seeing a pattern that the VA does is try and always say that back conditions are congenital or development defects and unrelated to service. They will say, spondylolysis is a congenital or developmental defect. If you look at your medical records, theres something you should take note of. it is an adaptation to the word spondylolysis, and it is THESIS/ So instead of just the word spondylolysis, it will either say spondylolysis with spondylolysis thesis or just spondylolysisthesis. BIG , BIG DIFFERENCE. Most doctors who are not trained in the spinal area extensively do not even know the difference. The va uses this to their advantage to say it was not service connected. But read the definition of spondylolysis thesis and you will see why this word is so important, and the VA tries to omit it in its claims evidence/

spondylolisthesis [spon″dĭ-lo-lis-the´sis]

forward displacement of a vertebra over a lower segment due to a congenital defect or fracture in the pars interarticularis, usually of the fifth lumbar over the sacrum, or of the fourth lumbar over the fifth. adj., adj spondylolisthet´ic.

See the words OR FRACTURE? a fracture is not a congenital or developmental defect. its an injury.

That is what the va is currently trying to do to deny my claim. They disregard medical evidence in my records submitted in 95, that says, there was in deed a fracture in the pars. They knew that wouldnt jive with a congenital or developmental defect, so they said there was no fracture.

The evidence of record said there was a fracture but it appeared to be chronic rather than acute. Nonetheless, it completely contradicts the vas statement that there was no fracture.

Edited May 8, 2014 by 63SIERRA

[ArNG11]

It is what it is and that is what we have to work with.

You think it stinks now - talk with others that filed claims in the 60's and 70's.

If it weren't for vets and organizations raising he**, it would be more horrible

than it is now.

Remember - NO POLITICS !

Carlie I can only try to imagine the grief and painstaking fight to be service connected and get benefits for AO conditions. 30 to 40 years is a ridiculous time frame.

I am furious and very well,, I'd rather not use the plethora of colorful metaphors that I know, I hope that it doesn't take that long.

I guess I got lucky with my back claim, if I can dare to call it that. I think I much rather have given up an extremity than to deal with what I am now. Physically and emotionally it is just so taxing. But alas, if "ifs" and "ands" were pots and pans the whole world would be a kitchen. Evidence is the key. So many say or rather write that and I am finally figuring it out, however, the fight goes with much more than that. Inservice medical documentation, continuing treatment, worsening conditions, filing a claim in a timely manner, knowing your evidence, knowing the regs and laws, a little bit of luck, and someone with a good conscience to rate a claim properly. The whole house of cards can be a complete illusion at times. Decisions, tactics, implementations, so much stuff.

I think I am just tired and maybe I'm on too many meds. I do want to state, for the record, I am extremely thankful for this website and the people on this forum. It has been a great help and guide.

[carlie]

wow this is really good

http://www.va.gov/vetapp03/Files/0316212.txt

Just gotta love the regs for relative equipoise and the BOD.

I know I do along with many others.

[63SIERRA]

this is important/

Clear and unmistakable evidence (obvious or manifest) is 
required to rebut the presumption of aggravation where the 
pre-service disability underwent an increase in severity 
during service.  This includes medical facts and principles 
that may be considered to determine whether the increase is 
due to the natural progression of the condition.  Aggravation 
may not be conceded where the disability underwent no 
increase in severity during service on the basis of all the 
evidence of record pertaining to the manifestations of the 
disability prior to, during, and subsequent to service. 

[63SIERRA]

Carlie I can only try to imagine the grief and painstaking fight to be service connected and get benefits for AO conditions. 30 to 40 years is a ridiculous time frame.

I am furious and very well,, I'd rather not use the plethora of colorful metaphors that I know, I hope that it doesn't take that long.

I guess I got lucky with my back claim, if I can dare to call it that. I think I much rather have given up an extremity than to deal with what I am now. Physically and emotionally it is just so taxing. But alas, if "ifs" and "ands" were pots and pans the whole world would be a kitchen. Evidence is the key. So many say or rather write that and I am finally figuring it out, however, the fight goes with much more than that. Inservice medical documentation, continuing treatment, worsening conditions, filing a claim in a timely manner, knowing your evidence, knowing the regs and laws, a little bit of luck, and someone with a good conscience to rate a claim properly. The whole house of cards can be a complete illusion at times. Decisions, tactics, implementations, so much stuff.

I think I am just tired and maybe I'm on too many meds. I do want to state, for the record, I am extremely thankful for this website and the people on this forum. It has been a great help and guide.

BROTHER .. ive been tired since 96 , but I will not quit. this information that was shared tonight, gives me great hope.

[carlie]

Probably would have remained denied without relative equipoise and the BOD.

Same link: http://www.va.gov/vetapp03/Files/0316212.txt

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran, a chronic
low back disorder was incurred in or aggravated by military
service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1111, 1113, 1131, 1153,
5103(a), 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.306
(2002); VAOPGCPREC 82-90 (July 18, 1990).

The Board concludes that, in the context of this particular
case, the lay evidence is sufficiently credible and probative
of a chronic back disability existing as a result of a pre-
existing back defect, which was subject to superimposed
injuries during service, so that the positive and negative
evidence are at least in equipoise, allowing the benefit of
the doubt to be granted in favor of the claimant. As noted
above, the evidence as a whole shows that the veteran entered
service with a pre-existing defect of the spine,
spondylolysis. As a result, his intrinsically weak lumbar
structure was a risk factor for the development of
superimposed lumbar strain and spondylolisthesis. See THE
MERCK MANUAL, § 5, Ch. 62, pp 504-505 (17th ed. 1999).

Although the veteran had a congenital back disorder prior to
service at L4-L5 (spondylolysis), he sustained a back injury
at the level of L4-L5 during military service and was
diagnosed with spondylolisthesis (an acquired disorder).
Further, post-service medical evidence shows the presence of
degenerative changes at L4-L5 and indications of acquired
intervertebral foraminal stenosis. Accordingly, resolving
the benefit of the doubt in favor of the claimant, the Board
finds that service connection should be granted for a back
disability, which is shown by the evidence to have resulted
from a congenital defect, which was subject to superimposed
injury during service. VAOPGCPREC 82-90 (July 18, 1990).

[63SIERRA]

I understand the case points, but to me, it seems even uneccasary that they even had to use the " benefit of the doubt" rule. There was no doubt. The veterans back was aggravated during service, he was worse when he left, then when he came into service. period. so why they had to stretch the case out, and make a leap as to giving the benifit of any doubt is confusing to me.

Nonetheless this information is going to be hard for the VA to shut my claim down again. Im ready to get it on.

THIS INFORMATION CAN SURELY NO DOUBT HELP THOUSANDS OF VETS THAT WERE WRONGFULLY DENIED. !

Edited May 9, 2014 by 63SIERRA