posted
I recently received a medical opinion from one of my doctors who stated the following in the letter, "It appears that his (diagnosis inserted here) were temporally related to his military service."
I would like to know if you think this would be recognized by the VA as the same as the popular phrase listed in the subject line.
Sound off please!!!!
Posts: 121 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
Looks like the doc is relating it to your service time. (see 3b below) I've never seen that on a docs notes before, but it makes sense if you put it in that context.
Main Entry: 1tem·po·ral Pronunciation: \ˈtem-p(ə-)rəl\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French temporel, from Latin temporalis, from tempor-, tempus time Date: 14th century 1 a: of or relating to time as opposed to eternity b: of or relating to earthly life c: lay or secular rather than clerical or sacred : civil <lords temporal> 2: of or relating to grammatical tense or a distinction of time 3 a: of or relating to time as distinguished from space b: of or relating to the sequence of time or to a particular time : chronological — tem·po·ral·ly adverb
posted
Short answer: No, it doesn't. At best, "maybe."
What the doctor wrote doesn't make sense to me, but maybe I'm just too dense to get it.
Also, IMO the word "temporarily" seems to suggest you no longer have these disabilities (and that they may have even ceased to exist before you got discharged), and/or they are causing no residuals that would garner any disability rating, except maybe at 0% (which is a start because it would make the issue SC).
I'm trying to say the statement is confusing and the doctor needs to CLARIFY just WTH he/she is saying...then we could comment further.
But really, those VA "buzz words and phrases" are there to be used AS THEY ARE STATED, so if that's what the doctor is trying to say -- "at least as likely as not" -- then he/she needs to USE THE APPROPRIATE PHRASE (and clarify WTH "temporarily" means) and not leave the reader -- or VA rating officer -- guessing...like we are doing here. Of course, he/she ALSO then needs to give a plausible medical rationale for why he/she believes something to be so.
I once brought up assorted VA buzz-words with one of my shrinks and she claimed she didn't know anything about such words having special meaning in diagnoses, reports, comments, etc. -- it wasn't her job description or field -- and I wondered if she was just Clueless in Seattle or just VA-ignorant. I think doctors need to know AND use these words raters look for because using them sure does help the rater out because it is VA-Speak. Doctors shouldn't be so insulated from the civilian/rating side, at least doctors should know how their choice of words/phrases might hurt or help a vet's claim -- how a rating officer would intrepret various words/phrases, let alone clarify a diagnosis. And this is especially important if a doctor IS working for/within the VA...he/she should learn the language.
It seems doctors don't think enough about writing up a diagnosis/C&P report that also comminucates well with non-medical civilian rating officers.
posted
The word is not "temporarily", it is "temporally".
Two distinctly different meanings.
According to the definitions that I posted above, it would seem that the doc is relating it to your service time.
However, like cloudcroft said, it would be much better if the doc would just use the terminology that the va is looking for. It would make things much clearer for the rating specialist.
posted
Your right about the two meanings. Unfortunately, the docter who wrote the letter works for the doctor who actually owns the practice and he is a retired Air Force Colonel and it is my suspicion that he knows why I wanted that phrase in the letter. I specifically asked for it from my doctor and she got an attitude over the phone with me about the phrase. So I suspect she consulted with the colonel. She said that my letter should get what I'm looking for and to contact her if the VA doesnt like it. I tried several times to get the phrase in the letter but she wasn't going for it. But your right, the word is TEMPORALLY, which means related to. So I guess I will wait and see. I should be ok. I have the diagnosis in my military medical records, civilian records and employers' records, and a current diagnosis with this letter, to include an MRI Brain scan that states "nonspecific areas of increased signal can be seen in association with {diagnosis inserted here}."
I'm getting ready to send the letter to the RO. Hopefully I will hear something soon. Its been 10 months now. Any additional input is appreciated.
Posts: 121 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, guys...I glossed over the word and saw "temporarily" there instead...sorry for my error.
So my corrected answer is now "yes" re: the disability being SC (in the opinion of the doctor that is) but on the second part of this, I still think the statement is poorly worded and needs to be changed. Doctors with attitudes.
But since the doctor won't reword it, then just do as she said and go with it...and see what the raters (VARO) tell you one way or the other. I mean if they SC you, then there you go and the issue is moot, but if they do NOT SC you, then you'd look at their decision explanation as to why not and THAT may tell you something, like they may have not been clear on WTH the doctor was saying, either. In that case, you WILL have to get SOME doctor (if not her) to spell it out for the VARO...but that remains to be seen...later.
But you know, if she DOES mean "at least as likely as not" then what's the big deal to her in changing the wording if her original statement and this VA-speak phrase means the same thing anyway, and changing it will communicate better with the raters? If it means THE SAME THING, then I don't get the resistence. Sounds like she's being evasive or maybe, her statement does NOT mean the same thing and she KNOWS that?
Regardless, just go with what you have NOW and wait for a decision.
Sorry again for my reading comprehension error and confusing the issue here in this thread.
Good luck,
-- John D.
P.S. If this is a "borderline" case, i.e., the evidence FOR and AGAINST you being SCed for something is in "relative equipoise," then read up on the "Benefit of Doubt" (BoD) doctrine and see if it can be applied here (it only applies in the specific situation of "relative equipoise" of evidence)...that is, if you get DENIED for SC and want to file an NOD. If you are granted SC, then BoD becomes moot.
posted
You could send in a statement in support of your claim that explains the definition of the c&p doctors opinion. You really shouldn't have to, but it could save you alot of time having to deal with an appeal if the rating specialist understands the statement the first go-around.
Im not saying that the rater would misinterpret the opinion, but it would be pretty easy to do given the similar spellings of the two words. Just a thought.
posted
I looked up the words to find out what the difference was. Besides the similar spelling is the VERY similar meaning. Synonomous in fact.
Actually, a synonym of "temporal" is "temporary" so the two words are much more alike then they are different...so I wasn't as far off the mark as I (or others) thought.
Still, IMO "temporally" is a VERY poor word choice as it can mean "passing," "transient" and "not permanent," all of which which is not good news for a VA disability rating assessment...because it can also mean "temporarily!" ;-)
So even though I misread the actual word the doctor used, it still pretty much means what I thought I saw so all my comments above still stand.
posted
I looked up the definition to "temporally" and this was the result: 1. Of, relating to, or limited by time. Based upon the medical evidence (in-service/non-service), to include the remaining language of the IMO, it is my stand point that the meaning is "relating to." The IMO states my diagnosis "increased in frequency and severity after his Gulf War service", used other information from "the research advisory committee on Gulf War veterans illnesses" and said "I am recommending that the patient be awarded all available benefits regarding his medical care and diagnosis."
Nonetheless, should they deny my SC based soley on another definition I will have no choice but to prolonged the process by filing a NOD and go back to the doctor and/or obtain a second opinion.
At his point, I believe its a matter of "flipping" a coin. I guess I will see. Thansk for the input.
posted
"Time" is the key meaning, not "related to." But from what you cited in quotes, I would say you SHOULD get SCed. So again -- like the rest of us here -- you just need to persevere until you DO get SCed.
I doubt they'd not SC you simply by "using another definition," but also again, your doctor is causing you unecessary concern simply because she wouldn't write up a less ambiguous statement.
posted
Great Catch, HankHill...I read it like Cloudcroft...and I would bet that the Rater could/would read-it the way Cloudcroft and I initially read it, too.
I had a similar experience when my Therapist wrote in a letter that my Mental issues were a Causal Relationship to my Service-Connected Disability. I thought she had said Casual Relationship...and I was not-all-that-nice to her...which I later apologized WHEN she told me that the WORD she USED was NOT the WORD I was reading. AFTER my apology...we had a laugh about it.
I would ask...does Anyone really think that the Rater will take the Time to look up the Word being used...or would the Rater just READ what the Rater SEES...and THINKS they SEE...which may or may not be what the Doctor meant...which by the way...that wording is muddy at-best.
I would go back to the Doctor and ask if the Doctor would re-write the letter...like this:
"It appears that his (diagnosis inserted here) were "At Least as Likely as Not" related to his military service."
IF the Doctor refuses...then at least send in your own letter to the VARO explaining this. Can not hurt.
(c) 1999-2005. INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS RESERVE ALL RIGHTS TO THEIR POSTINGS ON THIS BULLETIN BOARD WHERE COPYRIGHT IS NOT EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMED. (KANSAS CITY, MO.) *** Junior members, members, moderators, and administrators reserve common-law copyright privileges and rights to their own individual postings, unless expressly disclaimed. By using this bulletin board and in consideration for the privileges of such use, all guests, junior members, members, moderators, and administrators irrevocably agree to grant AGWVA permission and consent to use, store, retrieve, copy, distribute, and edit such message postings without limitation or exception, and irrevocably appoints AGWVA as agent for the purpose of execting any document or instrument necessary to effectuate this agreement. Furthermore, by using this bulletin board and in consideration therefor, all authorized or unauthorized guests, junior members, members, moderators, and administrators agree that the controlling jurisdiction over any dispute or controversy arising from the use or access of this bulletin board shall be governed under the laws of the State of Missouri and jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. *** While we encourage private messages to be posted in private forums requiring special authorization to enter, some messages on this bulletin board are protected by attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient privilege, and/or priest-penitent privilege, and such messages are intended solely for the use of those posting those messages, the intended recipient of that message, and AGWVA Bulletin Board's management - any disclosure beyond these parties is unintentional. The voluntary provision of medical, regulatory services/VA-representation, or religious services to members of the AGWVA Bulletin Board shall be limited by the case-by-case circumstances of each situation and shall be provided or not provided at the sole discretion of the person providing such services with the understanding that such services may stop or be limited at any time. Voluntary provision of any such service does not guarantee or assure any person a future or further right to such services. *** For posting messages to or from this bulletin board, AGWVA's management (moderators and administrators) are not compensated, directly or indirectly. *** Unauthorized use, copying, or distribution of material posted to this bulletin board is prohibited. Unauthorized access to this bulletin board is illegal and AGWVA reserves the right to prosecute anyone attempting to illegally access this bulletin board. AGWVA has stated explicit rules of conduct for its members posting on this bulletin board and all such rules are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set out hereinbelow. ***
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
