gen.coun. prec. 82-90

[mos1833]

quick question, if the ro denied my claim in 1985 and called my back injury a defect,with no doctors opinion.

just a interpretation from a x-ray..

which clearly chronic changes of my condition. would or should they have considered gen.coun.prec.82-90 or were they correct.

below are the records.i hope they open ok ???

 

 

 hadit 2.rtf hadit 2.rtf

 hadit 7 this is the one.rtf

hadit 7 this is the one.rtf

hadit 2.rtf

[FormerMember]

One thing I try to impress on you claimants is that the VARO is invariably wrong. They are always in a rush and top sheet everything. If they do not see it in the top three or four pages, for all intents and purposes, it's nonexistent. Case in point.I reported for my AO registry exam on Sept. 21, 1993. The first thing they said (at the VAMC) was that I had never been scheduled for one. No explanation on why I would be there. I showed them the notice. They immediately sent me to do all the labs and so forth but said they'd have to reschedule the doctor's exam. That never happened. I finally filed for Porphyria six months later in March 1994. The AO exam was constructively part of my archived records (before the advent of the present VISTA computer medrecs.) I finally got those records and sent them in to VA to include in my claim in 2010 on appeal to the BVA. By rights, VA should have collected them.  Yeppers. Duplicate was stamped across it when I finally got my c-file. 

You are going to face this problem so be prepared. Cite to it and document it. The c-file cannot lie. It contains everything you send in and all the medrecs unless you are one unlucky fellow like Jerrel. Fortunately, he'll be able to reconstruct his c-file to the consternation of the VA soon and prove that the Presumption of Stupidity is alive and well. Just because VA says it doesn't make it so. If you know you're right, time and the appeal will bear you out. You may have to go to the CAVC as I did to prove what was right in front of them all along but you'll prevail. Eventually, we win so do not lose heart. The more complicated it is, the longer it takes. My claims can always be used as a worst case scenario but take heart. Most of you didn't have any classified stuff that was buried for 40 years in nondisclosure agreements. I could have won it in 1994 if my medals had been listed on my 214 showing combat. Live and learn. That's why Theresa built this. We all want you to get there with the least amount of effort. You earned it. You shouldn't have to fight for it inch by inch.

[mos1833]

ok guys

heres what i plan on doing.

i will have my private doctor write an opinion ,

saying

its a superimposed condition.

i have in the record already == 1 chronic diagnosis in service

                                            == 2 x-rays saying osteoarthritis related to the anomaly ( which is what they called a defect )

so all i need is his opinion connecting the two.  === is that correct ---- ?

is there a form for him to used ?

can i send my nod to the board , or regional office.

can i write the letter and 'just'have him agree and sign it ?

{   Superimposed. ....That's the magic  word . It Clearly states in the x-ray report that Superimposed Osteoarthritis was caused by the original CONGENITAL /ABNORMALITIES  therefore if osteoarthritis  is still present today (chronic ) it according to the CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE standard of rebuttal this should be a slam dunk for service  connection } i like this too, thanks ketchup56. and all others

 

[mos1833]

thanks again all.

[mos1833]

here;s a little bit of what i did ?

first of all i did send in a nod to the evidence intake place in ga .the day before my year was up. ( on the 5th and it was up on the 6th )

when i tried to download the form i needed my printer went crazy,a long story there, but any way  ( NO ) form so i just wrote it out on a 

plain piece of paper and faxed it to the intake place, what do you think about that ??????????????

 

well i reading the decision i;am appealing and found what i think is a clear cue, 

ok try to follow my thinking here, in 1985 i was denied s.c. for my back because the law said the regulations  dont allow any benefits for 

a congenital defect, i guess it was ok back then not to consider any other possibility .they just said no and that was that.

i finally got it reopened in 2000,from there its been up and down the court system since then.  now to the point i;am trying to make is in my 2013 denial

they used the same regulation and called it relevant to deny.so in 2013 they sited 3.303 (c) from 2001. see what i saying they forgot 82-90 changed 

since 1985. look at the link, hadit 10.rtf

to me thats not right. sorry again please understand , thanks

 

hadit 10.rtf

[mos1833]

help please, bump

[broncovet]

Ok.   "Congenital" is a death sentence to claimants.  You have to overcome this.  There is a life raft, tho!  

Its the presumption of regularity.  My take on this presumption is that, when your entrance physical doc opined you were in good health, YOU WERE IN GOOD HEALTH.  This means you did not have any congenital defects!!!  

Now, back to the Caluza/Hickson Triangle:

One such "leg" of the triangle is that you have an "in service event or aggravation".   Do not LET va OFF THE HOOK FOR "AGGRAVATION".  

Sure, the VA wants to throw the word "aggravation" in the trash, but don't let em do it!  The Aggravation word is in the Caluza elements for a reason.  

You see, if your entrance physical doc did a physical, and did not note any congenetial defects, then you were free of congenital defects!!!.  (There are tests for these things, you know).  

NOw that you got out, and you have a current diagnosis of this malady, but you did not have the congenital defect at entrance physical, It had to be aggravated by service (as long as you applied within a year of your exit from service).