remand is back. DENIED still. i have 30 to provide

[paulcolrain]

this is what the judge put in remand back to AOJ:

REMAND

The severity of the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy has not been recently evaluated, and as that is the prime concern for claims in an increase in rating, a new examination is necessary. Also, outstanding records, to include any records held in federal custody, are to be obtained. Other directives are as below. 


Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

(Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). Expedited handling is requested.)

1. Obtain all outstanding VA treatment reports for the Veteran and associate copies with the claims file. In addition to all treatment records, vocational rehabilitation records, if present, must be obtained and associated with the claims file. In addition, contact the Social Security Administration (SSA) and determine as to if a claim for disability benefits has been filed with that agency. If SSA records do exist, obtain copies and associate them with the claims file. 

2. As the Veteran has applied for disability benefits administered by the State of California, contact the appropriate state agency and obtain any records associated with a disability determination by that agency. If no records are found to exist after an exhaustive search, so annotate the claims file. 

3. Schedule the Veteran for a comprehensive neurological examination of the bilateral lower extremities to determine the severity and, if possible, the onset date, of current bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. 

The examiner's attention is called to the following:

*The examiner should determine current neurological deficits associated with service-connected bilateral radiculopathy in the lower extremities. Impairments with respect to strength, muscle tone, and propulsion should be specifically described. 

*Range of motion testing of the lower extremities should occur, and if radiculopathy is productive of impairment, the degree to which such decrease in motion exists should be reported. 

*The Veteran is now in receipt of service-connected compensation benefits for his bilateral hips. VA clinical records, dating to 2011, note that radiculopathy AND hip disablement exist as comorbid conditions. 

*The Veteran has credibly reported pain in the hip and lower extremity regions for many years; however, there is some conflict in the record as to when radiculopathy had an onset. Specifically, a February 2011 VA clinical report listed the radiation of pain from the lower back into the lower extremities, and a later November 2011 examination report failed to diagnose radiculopathy (earlier March and October 2010 physical examinations also do not indicate the presence of radiculopathy). Nonetheless, the Veteran has credibly reported pain in the lower extremities for many years, and, to the extent possible, the degree of pain associated with radiculopathy and with service-connected hip arthritis should be described. 

*Specifically, it is noted that the claim for entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy has been deemed to originate in September 2004 (date of claim). To the extent it is medically possible, the neurologist is asked to note the Veteran's complaints of pain, in addition to the conflicting medical evidence, and offer an opinion as to whether bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy has been present since the date of claim in 2004. If not, the approximate date of onset should be expressly described. 

ALL CONCLUSIONS MUST BE SUPPORTED BY APPROPRIATE MEDICAL EXPLANATION.  THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION IN CONTEMPORANEOUS MEDICAL RECORDS IS NOT, IN ITSELF, A SUFFICIENT BASIS ON WHICH TO REST AN OPINION. 

4. Following the above-directed development, re-adjudicate the Veteran's claims for an increase and earlier effective dates. The RO's attention is called to the potential applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). If the claims remain denied, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and forward the claims to the Board for adjudication. 

The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).

This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West 2014).

 

this is what the SSOC STATES:

beneath is the link to the SSOC please click

3152

Edited April 14, 2018 by paulcolrain
something isnt right

[vetquest]

Sounds like a good remand to me.  In my opinion it looks like the board has taken exception to the handling of your C&P and decision.

[broncovet]

It does not make sense to me.  Is this a new SC, or a request for increase?  You probably know this.  If its for new sc, then you need documentation of the Caluza triangle.  However, if its a secondary claim, then you need only a current diagnosis and nexus.  

If its a claim for increase, then you need documentation that your condition worsened since the c and p exam where benefits were awarded.  

[Gastone]

PC, a somewhat difficult read, however; the Remand was very interesting educational. Whatever did you use to attach the SSOC, a real pain.? Pdf's are much easier to open and read.

The Medical Evidence that was either lacking or missing in the RO Certified Appeal, that the BVA Judge addressed in the Remand was very educational, regardless of the continued Denial.

What did your American Legion Rep say regarding the SSOC dated 02/24/2018? You're now well past the "30 day" Appeal period of the SSOC Decision, correct. The EED Denial appears substantiated by your Medical Symptomology EOR as stated in the SSOC.

It's been awhile, am I correct in the following? You're 80% SC trying to get to 100% CSC with Increases to your bi-lateral Radicular SC and an EED back to the original Claim Date in 2004? You've never filed for,  nor been Denied IU?

[Guest L]

@paulcolrain see more positive, than negative.

They listed the specific neurological criteria, Range Of Motion  - How radiculopathy plays into the disability,  for the substance of your claim- I am surprised you did not have this documented on the last C & P exam. 

    "affects" meaning - I cannot bend over to put my pants on or cross knees, difficulty sitting on toilet. - be specific. 

An Independent Medical Exam , would solve this... jmo.... and it appears, they state at the end will expedite...BINGO! 

This would be money well spent - you would get it back when they award the increase. ( I call this Vegas odds...I spent $2,000, on mine but have received with retro over $100,000... ) 

Good Luck 

Edited April 14, 2018 by L
grammar for clarity

[paulcolrain]

please note that i havnt yet shown what the SSOC states about the increase.....

this post was for any answers to the Earlier effective date. 

Judge states that it is Deemed to have been date of claim but wants Dr. to prove ???? 

please Read what Dr says and what judge says 

[paulcolrain]

i also understand that the SSOC has a 2/24/18 date but the stamping on the front page and the mailing date was 3/28/18....... and there is symptoms stated within the record but was not read by Dr. read close when Dr states that waxing and waining and could be there but no Objective evidence was found...... Judge states to remember that the lack of evidence should not be used as the opinion.