Suppose a veteran was discharged from the service due to disability. Specifically, ongoing weakness in both legs. The cause at the time was considered psychosomatic illness. Years after discharge, it is determined the veteran has and had MS as the cause of his weakness. The veteran files a claim for multiple sclerosis (MS), and leg weakness “secondary to M.S.”
The VA denies the claim for M.S., stating he was not diagnosed with MS while in service. They also deny claims for leg weakness claimed as “secondary to MS”, stating A) did not have diagnosis of MS in service, and B) that did not have symptoms of leg weakness while in service (clearly an erroneous oversight)
QUESTIONS: Can the veteran file new claim for direct service connection of leg weakness, based upon showing them the in service complaints of leg weakness (that led to medical discharge)(along with IMO nexus statements), AND at the same time, file NOD/appeal for the underlying etiology, M.S.? Or, would the RO state that they will not reopen the direct service connection for the leg weakness, because the “etiology” (MS) is currently on appeal?
Important points:
VA psychiatrist has already stated in the C&P notes that veteran did not have psychosomatic illness while in service, and that his service connected depression is worsened due to his “in service Multiple Sclerosis”.
Another VA examiner said MS “less likely than not” incurred in service. But that C&P exam was conducted a week before the RO even requested STR from the veteran and National Achieves (proof of that is in c file in form of letter sent to veteran requesting STR the week after the C&P exam)
Veteran had submitted FOUR IMOs from neurologist stating they have reviewed STR and its clear it was MS while in service based upon review of neurological exam findings while in service.
They basically ignored a mountain of evidence in favor to the single C&P opinion (#2 above).
Question
SubicBay0311
Suppose a veteran was discharged from the service due to disability. Specifically, ongoing weakness in both legs. The cause at the time was considered psychosomatic illness. Years after discharge, it is determined the veteran has and had MS as the cause of his weakness. The veteran files a claim for multiple sclerosis (MS), and leg weakness “secondary to M.S.”
The VA denies the claim for M.S., stating he was not diagnosed with MS while in service. They also deny claims for leg weakness claimed as “secondary to MS”, stating A) did not have diagnosis of MS in service, and B) that did not have symptoms of leg weakness while in service (clearly an erroneous oversight)
QUESTIONS: Can the veteran file new claim for direct service connection of leg weakness, based upon showing them the in service complaints of leg weakness (that led to medical discharge)(along with IMO nexus statements), AND at the same time, file NOD/appeal for the underlying etiology, M.S.? Or, would the RO state that they will not reopen the direct service connection for the leg weakness, because the “etiology” (MS) is currently on appeal?
Important points:
They basically ignored a mountain of evidence in favor to the single C&P opinion (#2 above).
Any advice greatly appreciated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
16
10
6
4
Popular Days
Apr 24
38
Apr 23
2
Apr 25
1
Top Posters For This Question
free_spirit_etc 16 posts
SubicBay0311 10 posts
broncovet 6 posts
Berta 4 posts
Popular Days
Apr 24 2015
38 posts
Apr 23 2015
2 posts
Apr 25 2015
1 post
Popular Posts
FormerMember
You will win on appeal and not a moment sooner. Sorry I'm not an elder but here's why. Lawrence v. Derwinski 1991. The attachment widget is broken here right now and I cannot attach it. Go to the CAVC
broncovet
You need to file a NOD. I agree with Berta and Ask nod but add my 2 cents: Specifically, you probably want to "Attack" the VA doc who opined against you. Just look on your C and P exam for the C
FormerMember
One thing enunciated by Veterans' lawyers over and over in San Francisco last week was the new propensity to "develop to deny" VA claims at the AOJs. The clear purpose being to sweep the decks clean
40 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now