A little help please

[AllTheWay]

I have been trying for years to get my knees serviced connected but I still get the bid "D" some maybe someone that has had the same experience can guide me to the light.

Applied for bilateral knee condition  in 2009. Denied. No permanent residual or Chronic disability.

Filed again 2012, same thing, as well as 17, 18.

2019 I filed different. Filed secondary to my bilateral flat feet. Had all new evidence, MRI, even a DBQ from my personal Doc. Guess what. The big D.  I opened up a supplemental claim with new evidence. Got the D again. What am I doing wrong Here?

 

Knee Decision.pdf

[Berta]

This is one of many BVA decisions that show what strong IMOs can do for any vet with secondary disabilities due to pes planus:

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.  By extending the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for a bilateral knee disability as secondary to the service-connected foot disability have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2014).

2.  By extending the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for a bilateral hip disability as secondary to the service-connected foot disability have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2014).

3.  By extending the benefit of the doubCONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.  By extending the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for a bilateral knee disability as secondary to the service-connected foot disability have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2014).

2.  By extending the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for a bilateral hip disability as secondary to the service-connected foot disability have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2014).

3.  By extending the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for a low back disability as secondary to the service-connected foot disability have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2014).
t to the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for a low back disability as secondary to the service-connected foot disability have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2014).

https://www.va.gov/vetapp15/Files2/1516749.txt

sorry iit did'nt come out as Plain text-

BVA granted the secondarys but remanded also for a proper rating on the foot disabiiity.

 

[AllTheWay]

7 minutes ago, broncovet said:

IT sounds like you did your homework.  Here is the phrase the rating specialists look for:  "(diagnosis) is at least as likely as not related to an in service event".

Your doctor said, 

This sounds like a deal killer.  However, what you posted in red seems to contradict that. 

When their is a "balance of positive and negative evidence (against the claim)" then the claim is in "equipose" and it must be awarded to the Veteran.   You are gonna need to appeal this, probably to the BVA.  The BVA "should" order a new c and p exam unless they can award for equipose when the past c and p exams are in conflict or unclear.  

The BVA, however, can "choose" 1 c and p exam over another "provided that" they give a reasons and bases for doing so.  For example the board can say one exam was "more thorough" if the examiner noted he reviewed your records, while other examiners did not so state.  

Finally, if you can obtain this, try to find out what the examiners qualifications were.  Ok, so one was a doc, the other a NP.  The doc should have priority over the NP, but NOT so if the doctor was unfamiliar with knees, say if he was a internal medicine doctor.  

The idea here is the examiner is an "expert witness".  An expert witness is, well an expert in the field, meaning he has had medical training or experience with your type of cases.  The vA often "pawns off" c and p examiners who are NOT experts, because the examiner is presumed competent absent a challenge from you.  

Example:  I was given a C and P exam by an MD for sleep apnea.  This doctor had no experience in sleep medicine, and was not competent to opine whether or not my sleep apnea was related to service.  The examiner was given a pass because it was a VA examiner.  But, I challenged the exam because the doctor was not an expert witness ON SLEEP APNEA because she had no training or experience in the field (sleep medicine).  

 

By reading and learning on the Hadit site and great members like you,  I did learn to check the criteria of the C&P examiner. However, on the last claim that I had submitted was a secondary claim due to flat feet. That particular examiner (MD) had 15 years with VA and 30 years as a Dr. She did recognize that I did have problems but did not think that the flatfeet caused it. I do agree with you. Was she an expert in that field? I don't know.

 

[AllTheWay]

5 minutes ago, Berta said:

This is one of many BVA decisions that show what strong IMOs can do for any vet with secondary disabilities due to pes planus:

"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.  By extending the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for a bilateral knee disability as secondary to the service-connected foot disability have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2014).

2.  By extending the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for a bilateral hip disability as secondary to the service-connected foot disability have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2014).

3.  By extending the benefit of the doubCONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.  By extending the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for a bilateral knee disability as secondary to the service-connected foot disability have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2014).

2.  By extending the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for a bilateral hip disability as secondary to the service-connected foot disability have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2014).

3.  By extending the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for a low back disability as secondary to the service-connected foot disability have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2014).
t to the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for a low back disability as secondary to the service-connected foot disability have been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2014).

https://www.va.gov/vetapp15/Files2/1516749.txt

sorry iit did'nt come out as Plain text-

BVA granted the secondarys but remanded also for a proper rating on the foot disabiiity.

 

Thank you so much Berta. This is some great info that you all are providing for me.

[ShrekTheTank]

You got this keep fighting!  All the advice above is amazing!  

[deedub75]

16 hours ago, AllTheWay said:

I have been trying for years to get my knees serviced connected but I still get the bid "D" some maybe someone that has had the same experience can guide me to the light.

Applied for bilateral knee condition  in 2009. Denied. No permanent residual or Chronic disability.

Filed again 2012, same thing, as well as 17, 18.

2019 I filed different. Filed secondary to my bilateral flat feet. Had all new evidence, MRI, even a DBQ from my personal Doc. Guess what. The big D.  I opened up a supplemental claim with new evidence. Got the D again. What am I doing wrong Here?

 

Knee Decision.pdf 2.26 MB · 10 downloads

I went through literally the exact same thing.  I claimed bilateral flat feet and then claimed knees and back secondary to flat feet in 2011 or 2012.  They were all denied so I asked for a DRO review and the flat feet claim was granted but the knees and back were still denied.  After years of it sitting at BVA and multiple denials in the RAMP process (most recent denial was April 2019), I finally asked orthopedic surgeon in January to write a nexus letter.  I've been a patient of his since 2014.  I actually wrote the letter for him using the template that is part of this group.  I gave him some of my claims file information to review.  He couldn't believe that the VA examiner was saying that flat feet couldn't cause knee and back issues!  

I submitted the supplemental claim with the nexus letter in February and had C&P exams conducted on March 13.  My claims were finally granted last week but they screwed up the effective.  They made the effective date the date they received my supplemental instead of going all the way back to around 2011 so now I have to file another supplemental to get this fixed.

[AllTheWay]

7 minutes ago, deedub75 said:

I went through literally the exact same thing.  I claimed bilateral flat feet and then claimed knees and back secondary to flat feet in 2011 or 2012.  They were all denied so I asked for a DRO review and the flat feet claim was granted but the knees and back were still denied.  After years of it sitting at BVA and multiple denials in the RAMP process (most recent denial was April 2019), I finally asked orthopedic surgeon in January to write a nexus letter.  I've been a patient of his since 2014.  I actually wrote the letter for him using the template that is part of this group.  I gave him some of my claims file information to review.  He couldn't believe that the VA examiner was saying that flat feet couldn't cause knee and back issues!  

I submitted the supplemental claim with the nexus letter in February and had C&P exams conducted on March 13.  My claims were finally granted last week but they screwed up the effective.  They made the effective date the date they received my supplemental instead of going all the way back to around 2011 so now I have to file another supplemental to get this fixed.

Its a shame that Vets have to go through this much trouble. On top of that, spending out of pocket expenses just to get service connected. I know. I have spent over 10 grand out of pocket on Private Dr. I have been trying to get my back and neck service connected as well for years but of course the denial. I do have a disability lawyer fighting that one right now.

Looks like I am going to have to go that route with knees as well. 

As far a doctor doing an IMO/IME, all of the private docs that I have been to refuses to write them for some odd reason then I hear people stating call people like Dr. Bash etc. So what I don't understand is why do I have to spend to much money and still may get denied and now have to wait for years for an appeal. Its all about the money and not taking care of the vets that had made a sacrifice for their country.