Cp exam weight

[Phild523]

I was just wondering how much weight a rater gives to the results of a c&p exam. I have heard people say that if an examiner gives you at least as likely as not that you are service connected for that issue under the cfr. Others have said that the rater does not have to go by that and only uses the exam as a piece of evidence.  In my situation I have been sent to two initial tbi c&p exams each time with the examiner saying at least as likely as not. I also went to a C&p for PTSD which I received due to or resulting from. Then the cp examiner for ptsd was asked for a medical opinion in which she said at least as likely as not. 

Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks for your input. 

[broncovet]

I was denied with "at least as likely as not" on a c and p exam in 2002.   I appealed and won at the BVA, however, the VA decided I deserved "0" percent as an evaluation.  Even Worse, they shreded my tdiu claim.  The VA fully deserves their reputation as a corrupt government agency.  

[NoZZZ's]

I was wondering this same question myself.  I recently had a VA C&P where the examiner opined, regarding my claimed conditions, that I had and in-service event, a current diagnosis, and a "at least as likely as not" nexus between the two. From what I have read here, that is usually the biggest obstacle to overcome. My medical records and private nexus letters also support this. Given that, is there a legal reason why a rater would, or could, overlook a favorable C&P and still deny service connection?

[GBArmy]

As you can see from other responses, a rater has the authority to make a decision based on the info and evidence presented. It doesn't mean that the decision has to be logical. As John suggests, it seems that half the time they deny the claim knowing the veteran won't appeal the decision. If you have the three elements for a claim, and as reported by you, you do, you just have to wait for the decision. Don't worry about it; it's natural to do so but it isn't going to change anything. Wait for the decision to be made. Hopefully, you get what you deserve. If not, you appeal. Best to you.

[Buck52]

6 hours ago, NoZZZ's said:

I was wondering this same question myself.  I recently had a VA C&P where the examiner opined, regarding my claimed conditions, that I had and in-service event, a current diagnosis, and a "at least as likely as not" nexus between the two. From what I have read here, that is usually the biggest obstacle to overcome. My medical records and private nexus letters also support this. Given that, is there a legal reason why a rater would, or could, overlook a favorable C&P and still deny service connection?

You just need to hope the rater can read, some raters are pressed for time, they need to work so many claims in a  a special  time frame  this causes the rater to be stressed and some tend to get in a to big of hurry  so-to-speak  and not read all of the veterans evidence and just speed read things and hence a denial. 

so you just have to hope you get a good rater that will read about your claim and consider all your favorable evidence and approve your claim....this causes the back log of Appeals when the rater don't read everything they need to make a final decision and a veteran is usually denied and have to appeal. (jmo)

[Berta]

The raters are not allowed to make any medical interpretations, or medical decisions ,of their own.

Neither are the Directors of the VAROs.

If C &P exams are favorable and the Caluza elements are met, then a denial would surely be a CUE under 38 CFR 4.6.

I have an issue filed as an Inspector General VA complaint.

The director the Buffalo VARO made a medical statement to me by phone, twice.

The evidence that  proves her statement is wrong, and the evidence  was verified by some VA guy she asked to call me,as well.Before she did.

The VA has had that same evidence for many years, but I listed it on my 5103 waiver and sent it sll in again, ( I advise everyone to do that) and the man did verify it all-(I asked him to briefly describe each piece first, that way he couldn't say yeah we got it but they didn't get it.)

I believe this fits into the IG criteria for review.

You can't NOD a phone call.

I have been prevented, by her statement ,to properly file my pending claims on the new 21P-601 forms.

I also told the IG that this type of erroneous information from a director of a RO can impact any other widow with a valid DIC and/or accrued claim, and might have already prevented them from receiving their proper VA benefits.

She said that my husband was totally disabled by his 1151 stroke, yet it was not Permanent at death.

All of my evidence says it certainly was. Death makes any continuous 100% rating, Permanent in the veteran's lifetime.

This was never an issue when they awarded my husband posthumously ,100% P & T for his PTSD.

The fact that this was a 1151 stroke is because the VA failed to properly diagnose it for weeks as my husband was in  the local  Bath NY  VAMC, for 3 weeks until I had a fight to get him a CT scan, and then the results were 6 areas of brain damage-the past 5 were TIAs,also misdiagnosed as well.The VA General Counsel medical reports verify that not only did VA cause the major stroke, they failed to even treat it, with proper  afterward care.

If any of you feel the IG should look into your issue, be sure to read all of the info at their site, and then file the complaint form.

I even sent them his autopsy again.And other VA medical evidence to prove the 100% P & T.

I bet the VA makes more errors then we know by failing to read the evidence we sent to them.

These are the same types of errors the doctors made when treating my husband.They failed to read his medical records, and made multiple erroneous diagnoses. He should still be alive.

 

[Phild523]

Berta, thank you very much for your response and knowledge. I am very sorry to hear about what happened to you and your family.