C&P exam Scheduled for Re-opened flat feet claim

[doc25]

So, I was able to obtain a filled out DBQ for Pes Planus (flat feet) and submitted a claim  to re-open my previously denied claim.

I've been scheduled for a c&p exam with LHI and a Nurse Practitioner is doing the exam.

The anxiety shot through the roof when I got the letter (it never gets old). 

I've read through my initial c/p exam from 2007. That one was done by a PA and the examiner somehow concluded that my in-service diagnosis was congenital (pre-existing) without looking at my entrance exam that says I had normal archs. That claim was denied. I was denied again in 2016 when I reclaimed it. This will be my third time claiming it. 

Hopefully, 3rd time is the charm. 

Can I take all my evidence? Or no?

 

[JKWilliamsSr]

Doc25 here is something that may help from an appeal standpoint. 

"In making findings of fact, the BVA is required to consider and discuss evidence on both sides of the issue and to reconcile any conflicts among such evidence or alternatively provide explanation of reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the claimant or determining that such evidence is of little weight or probative value. Quiamco v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 304 (1994). "

Given the fact that you have Podiatrist diagnosis that is completely contradictory to that of your C&P the VA (or more accurately BVA) will have to address this..  I believe this is actual case law so they just can't say we take this diagnosis over that one without an explanation and in this case I can't see any argument where you would take the diagnosis of a Physician Assistant over that of a Podiatrist.

Here is another:

BVA cannot reject evidence favorable to the claimant without providing adequate reasons and bases for its decision. Patton v. West, 12 Vet.App. 272 (1999).

Here is a law that covers the equipoise rule:

A claimant seeking VA benefits enjoys the "benefit of the doubt rule," or alternatively an "equality of the evidence" standard, as opposed to the more common preponderance of the evidence standard applied in most civil contexts. This standard can be thought of as the burden of persuasion, in that evidence must rise to a state of equipoise for the claimant to win. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). Skoczen v. Shinseki, 564 F.3d 1319 (2009). 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).

Edited February 12, 2019 by JKWilliamsSr
additional info

[doc25]

Yay! I'm another statistic. Lol. Well my reopen claim likely got denied. I'm not giving up on it though. I'll wait for the BBE to see what happened.