The VARO Develops Evidence To Deny Claim(Ankles)

[63Charlie]

I had a C&P exam for my ankle condition performed by QTC in July, 2016.

The QTC examiner( PA-C), service connected my ankle condition(bilateral)on his DBQ/ medical opinion and gave a concise rationale based upon service medical treatment records.

 

However... the VARO wouldn't render a decision after the favorable C&P exam.

 

Instead, I was sent for another C&P exam to Lake Baldwin(Orlando VAMC) five months later.

 

The second examiner(PA-C) wouldn't service connect my ankle disability(less likely as not) on his DBQ/medical opinion.

 

I asked the second examiner why was I having another C&P exam for the same condition because the first examiner told me he was service connecting my condition.

He typed on his DBQ what I said in CAPITAL LETTERS.

 

The latter examiner's DBQ/ is chock full of false statements concerning my medical evidence, especially my service treatment records.

He said there was no objective diagnosis in service when I actually had several for my ankles/feet/legs.

 

The VARO stated that the second examiner's opinion was more persuasive, and used the unfavorable C&P exam as the reason my claim was denied.

 

This second examiner mentioned he was seeking employment as the VA was laying him off.

 

At least that's some good news for other vets in the Orlando area so they don't have to face a dishonest examiner.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2017 by 63Charlie

[MikeHunt]

On 7/13/2017 at 10:17 PM, 63Charlie said:

I'm thinking, at this point, no matter what evidence was submitted on my behalf, the VARO was determined to deny my claim.

...

It was lie... to deny, from the get-go.

Really, you're defenseless if this is what someone wants to do. There's always going to be something in absolutely any claim where, in hindsight, you should've done, and people will point this out relentlessly.

I got granted and my independent examiner didn't have access to my eFolder. Precedent has held they don't need it. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, Dec 1, 2008, 22 Vet.App. 295

Quote

Accordingly, the Court holds that claims file review, as it pertains to obtaining an overview of the claimant's medical history, is not a requirement for private medical opinions.

Not to drag the post into this specific argument- or suggest you should hide the eFolder from your clinician or some equally absurd twist- Just to point out that on any given granted claim, there's a thousand things someone could've delayed or denied on.

Requirements, delays and denials help everyone except US. The RO gets more clerical personnel to pad their 'Number of persons supervised', then there's bureaucratic fixes to their bureaucracy- Like the DRO- That expand the VA. The entire BVA and USCAVC get jobs and make many in people who bring arguments, for example.

It's a game of numbers from the very start, really- Each little requirement delays when- or if- a Veteran will file.

In this case, it was the VA contractor who gave a favorable opinion in the first place, if I understood correctly.

Or, did I mis-read?