Opinion on IMO

[Whodat]

Hadit family, I would like your opinion/advice from my letter that my doc had wrote for me. 

 

Dear Sir or Madam:

I have reviewed blank service records and medical history. His DD 214 documents he served in the Army from September xxxx through December xxxx. His signed July xxxx enlistment exam is negative for any medical conditions. Mr. Blank suffers from lumbar degenerative changes and lateral recess stenosis, cervical spondylosis and foraminal stenosis, bilateral knee osteoarthritis, bilateral patellofemoral syndrome and left knee meniscal tear, erectile dysfunction, and migraine headaches among other conditions. 

 

Service treatment records documented Mr Blank was involved in a motor vehicle accident on November xxxx, he complained of neck pain, lower back pain, and knee pain. According to an article published in RMD Open, the Journal of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Disease, injuries substantially increase the risk of osteoarthritis. A person can remain asymptomatic for a long period of time, even for decades after the trauma. It is believed that osteoarthritis development in the injured joints is marked by the initial traumatic event by intra-articular pathogenic process. Therefore, it is in my opinion that Mr Blank's lumbar degenerative changes and lateral recess stenosis, cervical spondylosis and foraminal stenosis, and bilateral knee osteoarthritis are at least as likely as not due to the motor vehicle accident while in service. 

 

Doc printed name signature and NPI

 

There is more on the letter for the other conditions but basically says the same thing. 

 

What do you all think?

 

 

[Mr cue]

I wasn't about to even post because everyone no how I feel about imo. Lol.

But what caught my eye is all this the rater is to busy to address all evidence.

Or that they don't have time to address the veterans record and they are looking for the examiner to address it.

Well everyone understand I am not from the VA can do as they want state.lol

[T]he Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence it finds persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.” Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 
Vet. App. 428, 433 (2011) (citing Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995). Moreover, the Board must address evidence favorable to appellant, which includes competent medical evidence. Id. 
 

So when the rater or bva choose to not address all your evidence this is grounds for a remand.

Not just list it address it in the decision.