Dont Let Va "develop To Deny".

[broncovet]

The VA is not supposed to "develop to deny", and Veterans attorney Chris Attig suggests including this language in your appeal:

.a VA Nurse offers an opinion on the cause of a complex motor neuron disease she's never heard of...

...an Internist with generalized experience writes an opinion on the causation of a cancer

...VA Docs support naked conclusions with NO medical evidence

...VA docs use exams to Develop the Claim to Deny it (an illegal practice).

This is more than a one off problem....junk science has invaded the Veterans Benefits System.

The Court and the BVA haven't made any efforts to delineate what is - and what is not - acceptable and reliable medical expert evidence

But YOU can help bring this issue into the limelight...

ALWAYS include THIS language in any Notice of Disagreement or VA 9 where the VA relied on an inadequate Comp and Pen Exam.

end Chris Attig quote.

http://www.attiglawfirm.com/communicate/inadequate-c-and-p-exams/?utm_campaign=vlb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Put+THIS+language+in+EVERY+Appeal...&utm_term=Put+THIS+language+in+EVERY+Appeal...

more from Chris Attig:

Using this language, ALWAYS challenge the adequacy of the examiner's credentials at the NOD and VA Form 9 stages:

The Code of Federal Regulations requires that to be competent, a medical opinion must be "provided by a person who is qualified through education, training or experience" to offer one. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1). Competency requires some nexus between qualification and opinion. Dep't. of Veterans Affairs Proposed Rules, 66 FR 17834-01, 17835 (Apr. 4, 2001) (citing Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992) (stating that "opinions of witnesses skilled in that particular science, art or trade to which the question relates are admissible in evidence"), overruled on other grounds by King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012)).

However, the VA Benefits from a presumption that it has properly chosen a person who is qualified to provide a medical opinion in a particular case. Sickels v. Shinseki, 643 F3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Even though the law presumes the VA has selected a qualified person, the presumption is rebuttable. See Bastien v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 1301, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining that a veteran challenging the qualifications of a VA-selected physician must set forth specific reasons why the veteran believes the expert is not qualified to give a competent opinion).

Given that one part of the presumption of regularity is that the person selected by the VA is qualified by training, education, or experience in the particular field, the presumption can be overcome by showing the lack of those presumed qualifications.

I hereby request that a copy of the C&P Doc’s resume, CV, list of publications, list of specialties, etc., such that his/her experience and qualifications may be examined, reviewed, questioned, and/or challenged. I specifically request that any and all information stored in VetPort - or any other system of records - that pertains to the Examiners' credentialing as a medical professional since the Examiner's date of first employment and/or association with the VA - be included in my C-File and specifically examined by the BVA and CAVC to determine the adequacy of the Examiner's so-called expertise. 38 U.S.C. 7402; 38 CFR Part 46;VHA Handbook 1100.19; VA Handbook 5005, Part II, Chapter 3; VHA DIRECTIVE 2012-030.

Furthermore, I object to the following aspects of the VA Examiner's opinion:

a) The lack of support in the opinion with scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, and how it relates to the conclusion being sought

b) The lack of facts, tests, or data on which to base the opinion.

c) The lack of evidence demonstrating the Examiner's conclusion is the product of reliable principles and methods

d) The Examiner's failure to reliably applied medical, scientific, and or forensic principles and methods to the facts of the case.

By challenging the adequacy of the exam and directing the VA to include that information in your appeal, the BVA cannot overlook that evidence without forcing a remand.

By failing to get information that allows you to participate in your appeal, the BVA cannot fail to collect it without violating the Duty to Assist and - I would argue - violating Constitutional Due Process.

[63SIERRA]

Just the fact that the CP examiner asked me abt compensation and service connection, is a false CP exam, THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE CONCERN, the medical side of things should be the only concern.

Edited February 25, 2015 by 63SIERRA

[SueEdel]

In a complicated claim which included hypertension that was secondary--the nurse who did the C&P quoted WebMD as her source for denial. Since WebMD did not mention chronic pain and hypertension being linked she discounted and denied. Seemed rather unprofessional to base her opinion on one website that any fool could access.

[knap-sack]

I got my cfile now I realize why I was denied. The smr are so vague. That's why they respond no medical documentation. I have heard it before get your cfile get your smr. The navy did a horrible nob documenting my condition. Thankfully the va has done a great job documenting my condition. Wait and see.

[63SIERRA]

Im going to keep harping on this point ... it is a 2 pronged system,... If your primary team is lying to you, using wrong diagnostic codes, minimizing your problems,. ignoring your symptoms, all of these things can and do affect the outcome of your claims. The RO goes by what you are current disability and the level thereof presently is.. I

Heres an example.. lets say you have a debilitating spinal injury such as spondylolysis theses with DDD and nerve pain. BUT your company man, VA vetted , yes man. non veteran, masochistic doctor has your issue listed only as ? back pain? It doesnt take alot of thinking to realize that you will be screwed on your comp rating.

I gaurantee you, many if not most of the veterans that are diagnosed with generic preliminary diagnosis such as lumbar strain, shoulder strain, this strain , that strain, ,,, really have major issues that should garner a more serious diagnostic code, and more treatment and compensation.

THINK ABT IT/. DO YOU REALLY THINK THE VA WOULD PAY 20 PERCENT FOR A ' ''STRAIN'' ?

NO they are paying you 20 percent for something more major that should be getting 40 or 50 percent.

I BEG YOU MY FELLOW VETERANS TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT WHAT IT IS YOU REALLY HAVE AND COMPARE IT WITH WHAT THE VA IS CALLING IT. SEE IF THEY JIVE.

[Buck52]

I always wonder why, why does a VA Examiner ask the veteran this question

''Are you here for an increase in compensation, or ''I see your here for an increase in your compensation''

Maybe they don't ask all veterans that but they did me.

and it don't make any sense to me, the VA Examiner knows exactly why your there.

63 SIERRA, You mention we can't get C&P exam results from VAMC after the exam? when did they put a stop to that?

Anyway jmo a veteran can tell if he/she had a favorable exam, but needs to know what was said if not favorable so they can answer to it!

........................Buck

Edited March 28, 2015 by Buck52

[Fat]

Interesting...........