Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Welcome to The Veterans Disability Nexus, where we provide unique insights and expertise on medical evidence related to VA-rated disabilities. Leah Bucholz, a US Army Veteran, Physician Assistant, & former Compensation & Pension Examiner shares her knowledge related to Independent Medical Opinions often referred to as “Nexus Letters” in support of your pursuit of VA Disability every Tuesday & Wednesday at 7AM Central.
Take control of your medical evidence related to your benefits and visit https://podcast.prestigeveteranmctx.info/veteran/ for more information and to connect directly with us!
Hey, guys. It's Leah B from Prestige Veteran Medical Consulting. I am a US army veteran, physician assistant, and former CMP examiner. So today, wanna talk about the five most common mistakes in nexus letters that lead to denials. This isn't gonna be all encompassing, and this is just Leah B's opinion.
Leah Bucholz:Okay? So take it take it for what it's worth. So you have the diagnosis. You have the service history. You even maybe you even paid for a nexus letter.
Leah Bucholz:K? NBA is still denying your claim. What happened? So something most veterans are never told, or they just might not think about is that not all nexus letters are created equally. Okay?
Leah Bucholz:I've reviewed thousands and thousands of medical opinions, whether it's VA medical opinions, private doctor medical opinions from your treating providers, or, other medical experts. Right? Over the years, I've reviewed these, and many denials trace back to the same predictable weaknesses in the medical rationale. So today, I'm gonna break down the five most common mistakes I see in Nexus letters that can seriously undermine an otherwise strong claim. And if you've ever been denied for no nexus, this video might just help you understand why.
Leah Bucholz:So this video is for educational purposes only. It's not legal advice. For claim strategy or appeals, always consult with an accredited VSO claims agent or a VA accredited attorney. Right? If you don't know where to find one of those, va.gov has, great information and a search tool.
Leah Bucholz:You can drop some comments. I can give you a link to that if you'd like. Right? So, mistake number one, no clear medical rationale. So a nexus letter cannot just say it's at least as likely as not that this condition is related to service.
Leah Bucholz:That statement alone is just it's just not gonna be enough most of the time. So VA does not just grant claims based on conclusions. They grant based on reasoning. Right? So they wanna see a a valid reasoning or rationale.
Leah Bucholz:So let's say a veteran develops lumbar degenerative disc disease after years of airborne operations. We've talked about this a number of times. And if you're a paratrooper like me, thanks for not being a leg. No offense, legs. But we've got some other videos on paratroopers as well.
Leah Bucholz:So so if a veteran completed multiple airborne jumps, therefore, their back condition is related. Let's say that this is what your doctor puts in their statement. Okay? Veteran snuffy completed a lot of airborne jumps, so his back's related to that. You know, maybe that's gonna work, but, statistically, that's just that's just kind of not super helpful.
Leah Bucholz:I mean, I guess it's better than nothing, but that's just a conclusion. A strong opinion is gonna explain, you know, things like the axial loading forces involved in repeated jumps, how repetitive microtraumas contribute to disc degeneration, why imaging findings are consistent with that mechanism. Okay? So it's gonna connect pathophysiology to service history. Without that bridge and that explanation, the opinion is just sort of lacking in, weight a lot of times.
Leah Bucholz:So mistake number two, ignoring alternative risk factors or what some people would call bad facts. Okay? So this is one of the fastest ways to lose credibility. A strong medical opinion does not pretend other risk factors don't exist. K?
Leah Bucholz:We can't just say someone has lung cancer because they were exposed to some toxin exposure. Speaking of lung cancer no. I don't have it, but sorry about the cough. We have to acknowledge those things. So an example is, like, a veteran develops sleep apnea at age 55, and it they're also, golly, obese.
Leah Bucholz:They have hypertension. They have a family history. If the letter simply states things like sleep apnea is due to tinnitus, right, without discussing those other risk factors, that's just incomplete. Okay? So a a good solid opinion is gonna acknowledge those risk factors.
Leah Bucholz:Obesity is a known risk factor. Yes. Age contributes. However, here is why this the service connected condition is at least as likely as not caused by or aggravated by this aggravated, you know, the severity beyond its natural progression. Addressing competing risk factors strengthens your opinion.
Leah Bucholz:Right? It it points out that you've that that the writer has reviewed those risk factors and taken them into account. Ignoring them weakens the opinion. So a lot of veterans may want some of those facts left out, but, you know, we have to be thorough and good for, the good factors and the negative factors because that shows an honest, conclusion. K?
Leah Bucholz:So mistake number three, no documented record review. K? If a nexus letter just says based on the veteran's report, that alone, carries kinda limited weight when it comes to, you know, the strength of the medical opinion itself. The VA is gonna evaluate whether the clinician reviewed relevant medical records. K?
Leah Bucholz:That doesn't mean it it has to always be the claims file. You know, that's optimal if we have the claims file, if somebody's got your claims file. But I also know that veterans, it's sometimes hard to access that. But having the most complete records, and discussing those records is important in the in the opinion. So an example would be if a veteran claims migraines, since service.
Leah Bucholz:K? If the opinion does not reference service treatment records, it doesn't address post service continuity, does not discuss documented treatment history. The VA may give more weight to a C and P examiner who did. K? A strong opinion is gonna reflect things like review of service records if they're available, post service records, timeline consistency.
Leah Bucholz:K? A lot of that gap can be filled in with your personal history. Documentation matters. Right? Mistake number four, overstated certainty or emotional language.
Leah Bucholz:So medical opinions are not advocacy letters. K? I love y'all, and I and I am rooting for you, but we have to be grounded in science and not, you know, be writing as if we're your attorney. Right? That's that's your attorney's job is to be the advocate.
Leah Bucholz:We have to maintain professionalism so that it doesn't look like there's bias. Right? We we have to just try to be scientific in our approach. So medical opinions are not advocacy letters. They are they're they're not arguments.
Leah Bucholz:They are structured medical assessments, k, or medical, reviews. Statements like, there is absolutely no doubt, or the VA clearly ignored this and this. This proves beyond question. Those can actually reduce credibility. And and, honestly, I'm gonna be I'm gonna be honest with y'all right now.
Leah Bucholz:I see a lot of medical opinions where the medical professional is just really digging in on the VA. I've seen medical professionals cuss in their in their, letters before, like, saying it's ridiculous. This is, this adjudicator obviously is a ASS hat, you know, or or whatever. They'll they'll say things like that, and then the veterans get all pumped up because they feel like this medical expert is, like, really going to bat for them. But that actually just that just makes the the writer, like, lose credibility, and it's I don't personally, I don't believe that's helpful.
Leah Bucholz:K? It may feel good that somebody's going to bat for you, but that's not the job of the medical professional to do that. That's your lawyer's job to do or your BSO. Right? So it just again, that kind of stuff reduces credibility.
Leah Bucholz:So the VA standard is at least as likely as not, meaning, you know, that 50% probability or greater. Complex medical conditions are often multifactorial. When a letter claims absolute certainty without nuance, it may appear biased rather than objective. Professional probability based language carries more weight than emotional certainty. So mistake number five, confusing causation and aggravation.
Leah Bucholz:This is one of the most misunder misunderstood areas in VA disability, the medicine standpoint. K? Causation means condition a caused condition b. Aggravation means condition a worsened condition b beyond its natural progression. K?
Leah Bucholz:Those are different medical questions. An example would be a veteran with a service connected knee instability later develops hip arthritis. You may not be able to say that the knee caused the arthritis, but you may be able to to explain that the altered gait mechanics increased biomechanical stress, accelerated degeneration beyond expected age related changes. If the letter does not clearly distinguish baseline severity, evidence of worsening, why worsening exceeds natural progression, that might be a problem. A clarity here is critical.
Leah Bucholz:And, also, an important thing to note, it's not always the nexus letter. I wanna say something that's equally as important. Not every denial is due to a flawed nexus letter. K? So claims are multifactorial.
Leah Bucholz:K? So it's not a black and white situation. But setting that aside, sometimes the medical opinion is very strong, and the issue lies in how the evidence was interpreted or weighted. VA adjudicators review things like service records, private opinions, CNP examinations, lay statements, you know, regulations that apply to all of this. And in a and in a high volume system, evidentiary errors can occur.
Leah Bucholz:K? They they occur. I know you guys know this. So for example, a favorable private opinion may not be fully addressed in the rating decision. The rationale may be summarized inaccurately.
Leah Bucholz:Aggravation may not be analyzed separately from causation. Competing opinions may not be fully reconciled. Sometimes the decision may simply state the VA examiner's opinion is more persuasive without clearly explaining why. That becomes an evidentiary weighing issue, and that is where accredited attorneys and claims agents and VSOs can become essential because they evaluate whether the VA provided out adequate reasoning and basis for for the decision. My role as a medical professional is to ensure that the medical reasoning is strong, if it if it is, right, and and to document that.
Leah Bucholz:Legal sufficiency and appeal strategy belongs to the accredited representatives. So final perspectives. When a claim is denied for no nexus, it does not automatically connection. It may mean that the rationale wasn't sufficiently developed. Competing risk factors weren't addressed.
Leah Bucholz:Aggravation wasn't clearly explained if it applied or the evidence was way differently. Understanding that distinction is critical. A strong nexus letter is gonna be evidence based. K? We talked about that.
Leah Bucholz:Pathophysiology driven, record supported. K? Objective in tone, aligned with evidentiary standards as much as possible. Right? It's not simply a supportive statement.
Leah Bucholz:It is structured medical reasoning. Right? So if this breakdown helps you better understand how medical opinions are evaluated, consider subscribing to my channel. Please do if you haven't already. I regularly break down complex, be it disability topics as they relate to the medical side of things, and sometimes I have really awesome accredited legal professionals on as guests that touch on those legal matters.
Leah Bucholz:So, again, this video is is educational, for educational purposes only. And for your claim specific strategy, please consult an accredited representative, and I will see you guys in the next video. So thanks a lot, and I'll talk to y'all later.