Prepare For Bva Hearing

[paulcolrain]

2004 i was released from service. same year i claimed low back and bilateral hip strain. i had a c+p exam and doc said (diagnosed ) i had bilateral hip strain and lumbar strain. 2005 i was denied both the reason given was , no service treatment records could be found at all for my time in service if service treatment records are later found my claims will be re-open. i dint appeal this at the time i just waited for them to find the records.

december 2009 the VA found my records and granted me 10% for lumbar strain but, did nothing about my hips. 6 months later i sent a NOD stating that this is a claim that proceeded a denial because of service treatment records and because the records were later found then all my claims should have been re-open. they agreed but said we still are denying you for hips because your service treatment records didnt change our opinion about your hips. nothing in your record states anything about hips.. i got a copy of my c-file and yes there it was,,, service treatment records for my hips in fact in service doctors also stated that i had bilateral hip strain BUT said it existed prior to service.

i submitted this paper and they gave me a c+p exam. the doc stated nothing is wrong with my hips and that i had an existing history for a left hip diagnoses. during this time i was being seen at the VAMC and receiving treatment for my hips and lower back and radiculopathy. in fact , just 1 week after this c+p exam a vamc report shows my evaluation for my hips and range of motion to be with pain and a diagnoses of bilaterl hip strain. again i get denied because no doctor said it was do to service. then in 2011 i sent a primary care letter stating that i my bilateral hip pain could very well be related to service because of multiple rigors of life during service such as running and PT. Again this wasnt good enough, they stated i needed new evidence to re-open my claim and the doctor letter wasnt good enough because he didnt do a eval even though he was my primary also his letter didnt cite anything from my service records. i then got another letter from him after he read a few reports during service and he sent a new letter stating that he wishes to ammend the letter he already sent,,, it is now clear that the rigors of active duty are more likely than not created the issues with my current hip problems and stated the ortho reports from my service treatment records. so, i have a lot of records that rebut all the ro problems but they still deny and now i have a BVA hearing in D.C. on the 2nd week of may...

can anyone ask me some questions so that i can prepare for this hearing ,,,, questions that they would ask or some problems that you see i might face...

1) Injury in service, 2)injury now. 3) Nexus or IMO.

My 1 is (pain in hips and lower back during and after Physical Fitness Training

My 2 is (treatment records and diagnosis of bilateral hip pain on movement diagnosis hip strain.

My 3 is (service treatment records sating pain on movement diagnoses of hip strain. Also Dr. letter saying that the rigors of Physical Fitness during service such as running marching (multiple non-specific traumas to hips and back) more likely than not due to his service because of treatment records start with service and state pain with PT hips and back profile needed…

Edited March 20, 2015 by paulcolrain

[free_spirit_etc]

also about dr. letter.... well at least his opinion is based on something in my record.... the C+P doctor just states that he couldn't find a high impact injury in my records. so, one doc say's yes because of records he sees and the other doc say"s no because of records he doesnt see.

I understand that. But my opinion still stands that your VA's doctor's statement is not particularly strong. It could help. Perhaps they would grant the claim. Perhaps it would be enough to get a remand, since the C&P doctor's opinion is also not strong -- especially if you can point out the C&P examiner overlooked specific information in your file that shows you did experience trauma in service. Perhaps the BVA will seek an outside opinion to decide the claim. If they want to, they could decide to not give much weight to your doctor's opinion because he directly points out he only viewed 2 pages of SMR documents on his original opinion, and two more documents on the addendum. The BVA could well say that he didn't form an opinion based on the entire medical record. He admits he only saw a few pages of your service medical records. I think your claim would be much stronger if you had an IMO that clearly stated it was based on the full medical record and it was more likely than not that the condition was aggravated by service.

Your doctor's opinion states the SMR's showed you had back and hip pain in service. But I don't see where he refers to any injury or trauma. As you were discharged from the service because of the disease, I would think it is pretty clear that the disease was manifest in service and that you experienced pain. Their contention seems to be that it was a pre-existing condition that became disabling shortly after you entered the service with nothing to show there was a specific trauma or injury that should have made it disabling (if it was aggravated). I know it says you couldn't finish basic training and were discharged as the result of the disease. Can I ask how much of basic training you completed?

I think what you have to overcome is how quickly it became disabling after entering the service from "non-specific" injuries. You say you were only treated for the disease at a very young age. Did you live a pretty typical life doing pretty typical things without pain? Were you in sports? Were you pretty active? If so - that should be in your favor.

But I still think a stronger medical opinion with more solid rationale could help your claim.

Of course, that is just my opinion. If you think your case is solid enough, then you can go with what you have. If you are asking for assistance in strengthening your claim - that is my opinion.

[free_spirit_etc]

i posted the way the bva sees walker so that i can share my thoughts on the fact i have continuity of symptoms but for what i reade the bva and the va doesnt care unless the issue is listed in the list of chronic diseases. this is a horrible situation for vets. its like , if the vet had a back spasm in service and actually blew out a vertibrea but in service doc gave them asprin and profiled bed rest but no mri was done..( in service non wil ever be done ) then if it states that later 5 years veteran gets problems without arthritis showing on his xray he will be denied for chronicit but maybe he can still get direct anyway it would simply because pain in back isnt said as a chronic disease listed/

I agree the situation sucks. But I think you need to look in the other direction. If you were discharged from the service because of the disease, I don't see where showing the symptoms continued after discharge will strengthen your claim a lot. It seems like it is established the condition is currently present. It is established it was manifest in service. It is established it is the same condition. The contention is whether something in the service aggravated the pre-existing condition beyond the natural progression of the disease. Going years without needing treatment, and then pain in the service where you had to be discharged might be an area to look at.

Edited March 25, 2015 by free_spirit_etc

[free_spirit_etc]

You might want to study some of the BVA claims for the same condition.

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/bva_search.jsp?QT=Perthes&EW=&AT=&ET=&RPP=10&DB=2015&DB=2014&DB=2013&DB=2012&DB=2011&DB=2010&DB=2009

Take note of the reasoning used on the claims that were both denied and granted. Your strength might be in them needing to show by clear and unmistakable evidence the condition was not aggravated in service more than you having to show that it was aggravated in service.

[paulcolrain]

I agree the situation sucks. But I think you need to look in the other direction. If you were discharged from the service because of the disease, I don't see where showing the symptoms continued after discharge will strengthen your claim a lot. It seems like it is established the condition is currently present. It is established it was manifest in service. It is established it is the same condition. The contention is whether something in the service aggravated the pre-existing condition beyond the natural progression of the disease. Going years without needing treatment, and then pain in the service where you had to be discharged might be an area to look at.

yes,,, im looking for points of view also any criticism good or bad. it wiil help strengthen my claim in the long run. i can see that i need to pay for a new imo/ime because my claim is strong just not strong enough as i once thought and if the imo/ime shows it my way then that will make a big effect to the vba. as far as your point here in my copy quote,,,i like the point here,,, going years without pain and living an active life then joining the army and being discharged because of the issues and since having these pain issues......ill keep that as a key aspect...

[FormerMember]

Wilson v. Derwinski (1991) (#90-673) The regulations require continuity of symptomatology, not continuity of treatment.

[paulcolrain]

Wilson v. Derwinski (1991) (#90-673) ??? ask_nod, do you think that the bva still looks at this or does walker over ride this ? like, ok veteran shows symptoms wich are still important see Wilson v. Derwinski but to gain service connection through symptomology the claimant needs to have a chronic disease in the list,,,??? so frustrating because the more the veterans learn to be clear and persuasive about their arguments it seems to me the VA gets even more vague with how to get an award. just like When the veteran believes they have submitted new and material evidence but the RO says though they have never seen it and yes its is new and material ,,, it still doesnt change our mind. that line they use is incredible because the the law is clear,, all it has to do is go towards the point the veteran is trying to claim and it needs to be new so that the claim in its entirety is reviewed. anyway i dont want to get off point im just airing some thoughts on how the va confuses us about what we need and how they like to say we are confusing them.