IMO

[KC3]

I just received a IMO from my pulmonologist for SC PTSD aggravating sleep apnea and vice versa. In the letter the term service “related” PTSD is used instead of service “connected” PTSD. 
Is this going to be an issue?

This will be going to the BVA and possibly the CAVC. 

[toddt]

It probably will.  The VA likes the words: "is more than likely".  Here is what needs to be in an IMO:    https://hadit.com/ime-imo-doc-needs-supply-va-information-needs-not-non-veterans-affairs-docs-know-format/

[KC3]

Thanks Toddt I appreciate it. 

Also to all the other folks who chimed in. wow 

[brokensoldier244th]

Yeah, they can say 'related' or connected, but there has to be a qualifier of 'how much' its connected' to the condition in order for it to be a really strong correlation. You could have a left knee problem that might contribute to a right knee 'gait' issue, but it's contribution could be really minor in relation to, perhaps, an already existing deformity or malalignment in your right leg that isn't service connected, for example. If the pre-existing abnormality is the primary cause for the effects on the rt knee, rather than the contribution from the lft knee. 

 

Make sense?