Is there a way to get the VA to discipline a lying C&P examiner?

[Otrgypsy]

I know the difference between opinions and facts and making a mistake with fact.

This isn't about getting them to change the opinions. I love them because they are such clear BS and what they hung their hat on was an obvious error that has been retracted.

I have an NP & a Neuro, working as a team for LHI in San Diego. They "recently" did C&P's the reports/dbq's are laughingly transparent attempts to cause claim denial. The NP even argued that a clearly charted MD's dx of solvent poisoning was speculation and claimed the corpsmen who didn't pay attention to his dx were right in "diagnosing" it as flu. This A-hole took the bizarre step of referring to statistics showing it was a bad flu year as argument to support the lie that the dx was speculation. Moreover, I had serious GI symptoms for a minimum of 21 days. No one knows how many more. On last visit I still had nausea and vomiting. The flu last 7 days max.

So this pair are clearly defense whores intentionally causing denials of legitimate claims. Is there anyone in the VA that will give a shit? Or will they just patted on the back?

 

Edited April 9, 2022 by Otrgypsy
correction

[Dustoff1970]

Well since 1985 and many VA C&P examiners plus one LHI examiner I have had several examiners who outright lied about my disabilities including degree of PTSD, IHD/CAD heart disease estimated METS, OSA Sleep Apnea.   They also lie by omission such as ignoring favorable evidence in your records, ignoring your answers in response to their questions or in a 2017 IHD/CAT exam he wrote down his own answers instead of allowing me to answer his questions, etc., etc. Twice the BVA found the same biased VA examiner opinions to be 1. inadequate and 2. defective and I won my OSA Sleep Apnea appeal and received a remand on appeal of my IHD/CAD increase claim (still pending).

This of course makes it very easy for VARO rater to deny your claim as usual.

The good news is I prevailed over these chicken ch** examiners and won my claim on appeal to the BVA or the VARO in a rare occasion accepted my favorable medical treatment records and my personal statements, other evidence over the negative opinion of the examiner.  Since 1985 I have grown a very tough hide and learned how to deal with and overcome the yahoos.  It is now a fun mental and intellectual challenge like chess dealing with them.

At another location (not this forum) the yahoos who run things ALWAYS defend the VA raters and VA C&P examiners, ALWAYS.  That is silly of course but then again they are former.

I have been P&T TDIU since 1998 and recently also SMC-S.

Your mileage may vary.  Good luck

My comment is not legal advice as I am not a lawyer, paralegal or VSO.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Dustoff 11

[Mr cue]

Best thing to do is call the white house hotline an complaint about the comp exam and place.

Tell them u want a new exam.

At the least it is part of your record that you requested a new exam with a different place.

I would do this now plus upload a statement.

All this will go in your record.

If you got the decision I make sure you appeal it in time.

An let the process play out.

Good luck

[john999]

Don't feel too alone since I think every one of us has had a VA exam where the exam doctor lied or misrepresented the evidence.  I have had some beauties along the way.  This is why I have gotten IMO's and not worried too much about these rotten exams.  There are VA docs who just hate vets and think they can rise in the system by screwing us.

[Vync]

@OtrgypsyUnfortunately, this type of thing goes on too often. The LHI providers are trying to figure out things in hindsight and often were never trained on materials safety data sheets (MSDS) regarding things like solvent poisoning. 

I had an LHI NP hose up my heart exam and even opined on something completely wrong despite I had a non-VA specialist neuro doc opine that my heart attack was caused by side effects of migraine meds and failing to perform proper diagnostics given my risk factors. Of course, the VA cardiologist tried to tell me the same thing and said it was statistically rare and they would have continued to give me the same med. But just because statistics are quoted, they apply to the general population. The VA and examiners are supposed to consider all evidence and facts which apply to your situation. In my case, I appealed to an HLR and discussed it with them. They were baffled at how the LHI NP failed to even opine on the correct issue, let alone try to write up a shabby justification as to why they were right and my non-VA doc was wrong. I ended up winning the case on relative equipoise: VA NP opined less likely than not, but my non-VA specialist opined more likely than not, included strong medical rationale, and even clearly stated that they would not expect a cardiologist to be fully informed and aware of contraindications /side effects/risk factors for certain migraine meds.

Good advice from everyone else who responded. Definitely contest the exam as inadequate and appeal before your review/appeal window expires.

[john999]

Vync

 

                 I think it is a total crap shoot with the LHI doctors.  I got a good one in that she gave me more than I asked for but this was a fluke.  She really had no idea what she was doing.  She could  just as soon given me a bad exam.  VA will ignore evidence from experts and rely on horse doctors for results they like better.

[Richard1954]

This is nothing new, in 2016 I had a claim for torn meniscus left knee, secondary to the service connected right knee. My C/P examiner was a female N/P.  Her initial medical opinion was veteran hurt knee while walking on slope in his back yard. It is not likely the right knee buckling caused the injury, the slope was the cause of the injury. Then 21 days later she decides to change her opinion, she cited an opinion from an Insurance document writen in Canada, the document concerned gaits. She cited a sentance within this document, but only part of the sentance. Saying that one knee is never the cause of a disability of the other knee. However the discussion was talking about gaits, and said that a poor gait is not caused by another limb, ( or something like that) anyway I was denied the claim. I found the document she cited on line. I read every sentence and realized that she had only partly cited a sentence and that it had nothing to do with a knee injury.  I appealed the claim stating the NP had purposely gone out of her way, and purposely misquoated the document. I claimed she was bias to this veteran, and had no business doing C/P exams. The result was to send me to a local NP who had his own business, His opinion was that it was at least as likey as not that I injured the knee the way I said I did, and frankly when I appealed the denial , I also stated, it was just my luck to get a dishonest examiner, any other examiner whould have stated it was at least as likey as not , because there is no way to prove or disprove my story and how the injury happened.  I even went on line and wrote reviews about her concerning her games to screw veterans. In addition to the doctor saying it was as likely as not,  also said the arthritis was caused before the knee injury, making it impossiible to get a rating at that time for the arthritis.  My point is , most examiners are honest and when a dishonest examiner is caught that is good for the whole system. My examiner had been doing C/P exams for a long time, she no longer does them maybe because I complained.  I was awarded service connect secondary to the right knee because when I injured it my right knee had buckled and caused me to twist my  left knee as I fell to the ground. I recently applied for arthritis of the left knee, and it was awarded but in the straingest way adding the condition to the raing for the torn memiscus granted in 2016, with no increased rating for the arthritis or the knee. This is on appeal for a separate service connected award for arthritis and an actual rating.  By the way, when it comes to knees two different  ratings are possible one for the initial problem and one for arthritis when discovered on Xray.