Yuku free message boards

witchdoctor wrote:

---

Wait for the snail mail letter.

E-benefits is notoriously inept regarding claims results.

I'm hoping that there is a problem with e-benefits in this case, but the letter generator seems more consistent with the decision.

cruiser wrote:

---

Please keep in mind that current regulations specifically prohibit the granting of service connection for congenital pes planus, and the overwhelming number of cases of pes planus are congenital pes planus.  This is almost always the case when the pes planus is bilateral.

Having said that, the fact of the matter is that VA decision makers are extremely liberal with regard to pes planus claims and improperly grant service connection on a regular basis.  From having done the job for many years I can tell you that it's simply easier to grant a claim like this than to develop it properly and adequately explain congenital pes planus.  I would go so far as to say that most folks who are service connected for pes planus probably should have been denied if the regulation had been properly applied.  I was guilty of granting my share of these claims over the years.

I don't know whether you have acquired or congenital pes planus; however, since you said it was bilateral it puts the odds in favor of congenital.  I suggest that you wait for the decision letter and then if you want to pursue a Notice of Disagreement, do that.

Cruiser

Entrance exam shows a normal arch... I should also add that I never filed a claim for an undiagnosed illness relating to my feet, because I never served in Desert Storm. That is what puzzles me.

cruiser wrote:

---

ASSASSYN wrote:

---

I suggest you go see a non VA podiatrists. Get a outside opinion then present your evidence to the VA and let them argue againsts that.

Outside opinion as to what?  Argue against what?  He never said why the original claim for service connection for pes planus was denied.  Suggesting a course of action without knowing why the claim was denied is premature because there is no way to know exactly what type of evidence is needed to change the previous denial.

Cruiser

  

2trill4925 wrote:

---

ASSASSYN wrote:

---

My acquired flat feet were shown as service connected. My MEPS also showed a normal arch. But I also had numerous podiatry appointments while in service. They made the determination my arches had descended. If you have any records of complaint and evidence then that may be needed to assist your claim.

Maybe my approach is all wrong then.  Roughly 12 years ago I couldn't comprehend Latin A&P/medical terminology, so the only thing I knew was that when I entered service my feet were fine and during service I was told that my back and knee problems were due to having flat feet.  The only thing I ever noticed was severe cramping on the instep of my feet along with the tarsal regions feeling like they were dislocated.  Back in 2000 I filed the claim as general foot pain, and left it in the VA's hands.  I appealed up until the decision became final stating that there was no evidence of any foot disability in my SMR.  They kept referring to an acute EOC when I experienced trauma to feet in Air Assault School (even though my entrance exam showed normal arches, multiple pes planus diagnosis, and it was even diagnosed in my first C&P) .  My latest request was denied for an undiagnosed illness which I never filed for.  The only thing I can think of is when I had surgery on my feet, but I was stateside and all of my disabilities were documented (which was the reason for denial along with no evidence of serving in the Gulf).

I'm willing to accept that I may have filed the claim generally, expecting the VA to fully develop the claim and honor their duty to assist in accessing the whole foot as opposed to a pinpointed illness/injury.  After all, with the exception of secondary claims all of my other claims have been filed generally.

Finally, my question for you is:
When you filed your claim for pes planus, did you file it generally as a foot disability or did you specifically claim flat feet/pes planus?

Yes, I specifically filed it as pes planus. My evidence was specific. It did also include the effects related to the pes planus, like knee, back, and neck issues. I saw 2 podiatrist during service and after discharge I saw one more. All three had no idea I was seen by a podiatrists before yet all came to the same conclusion. I suggest you go see a non VA podiatrists. Get a outside opinion then present your evidence to the VA and let them argue againsts that.

The Old Medic wrote:

---

A diagnosis of pes planus while on active duty does NOT guarantee that you will be considered "service connected" for pes planus.

People often think that having had a "diagnosis" automatically means service connection, but it does NOT.

I would strongly recommend that you review those three "pes planus" diagnoses, and look for any additional words attached, such as "congenital", "long term", "bilateral", etc that would imply that this condition existed long before you entered the service.

I was personally listed has having "pes planus" on my entrance physical. In fact, I actually have high arches, or "pes cavus", the exact opposite of "pes planus". So, that "physical" is not the "be all and end all of claims".

You are putting WAY too much emphasis on YOUR opinion, and you are NOT telling anyone here what the exact written reason were for the VA denying you a service connection for your "disability" If you want any advice that will acutually mean something, it would be very helpful if you would list the exact wording of the original and subsequent denials of service connection.

This will take a great deal of time but I do intend to post the information that you are requesting.

I'm debating posting screen shots of these documents (identifying/sensitive information will be removed of course), including the MEPS entrance exam, trauma to both feet, and three diagnosis of pes planus in my SMR.

April 9th 2001 C&P Exam
Physical Examination:
Feet: The two feet are identical. He stands with his heels in valgus. He has no other obvious deformities. The longitudinal arch is flattened. He has full range of motion in his subtalar, midtarsal, and toe joints. The dorsal pedis pulse is palpable bilaterally. He has no corns or calluses.
X-rays:
Feet: Standing A/P, standing lateral and oblique views of both feet reveal that he has a mild metatarsus varus deformity which is not severe enough to be noticed on physical examination. He has some flattening of both longitudinal arches. He has no narrowing of the articular cartilage, osteophyte formation.
February 7th 2002 Rating Decision

5. FACTS: Service medical records indicate the veteran complained of left foot pain in 12-97. Examination at the time was negative for abnormalities. In 5-98 he complained of bilateral foot pain. The lower extremities had full range of motion, deep tendon reflexes were present and sensation was intact. Diagnosis was hypersensitivity of the right foot and metatarsalgia of the left foot. Prior and subsequent treatment records are negative for further complaints, treatment or diagnosis regarding the feet. The veteran did not respond to the Duty to Assist notification. During cited VA examination he complained of pain over the dorsal aspect of the 1st metatarsal, bilaterally. On examination there was full range of motion in the subtalar, mid tarsal and toe joints. There was no swelling or effusion found and no corns or calluses noted. X-ray showed mild metatarsal varus deformity. Examiner stated no disability of the feet was found.
ANALYSIS: A chronic foot disability was not established in service or found on VA examination. Therefore, service connection is not warranted. Reasonable doubt means a substantial doubt and one within range of probability as distinguished from speculation or remote possibility. The rule regarding benefit of reasonable doubt does not apply because the preponderance of evidence is unfavorable.

July 11th 2003 Rating Decision

7. Service connection for foot pain, right
Service connection for right foot pain was previously considered by rating action of February 7, 2002 and became final February 8, 2003. To reopen this claim you must submit new and material evidence to show that you developed a chronic right foot pain condition while on active duty which continues to be present today. You failed to submit any new evidence to show that you developed your chronic foot pain condition while on active duty.
8. Service connection for foot pain, left
Service connection for left foot pain was previously considered by rating action of February 7, 2002 and became final February 8, 2003. To reopen this claim you must submit new and material evidence to show that you developed a chronic left foot pain condition while on active duty which continues to be present today. You failed to submit any new evidence to show that you developed your chronic foot pain condition while on active duty.

July 18th 2006 Rating Decision

Service connection for foot pain

Rating Decision dated February 5, 2002 denied entitlement to service connection for foot pain and you were notified of the decision. You again requested reconsideration and Rating Decision dated July 11, 2003 denied entitlement to service connection. Those decisions are now final.




The E-benefits entry ended up being the duty to assist in the official letter, but alas here is what was posted on the site:

You were previously denied service connection for left foot disease, right foot disease. You were notified of the decision on July 31, 2008. The appeal period for that decision has expired and the decision is now final. In order for us to reopen your claim, we need new and material evidence.  Right and left foot disease was denied as an undiagnosed illness because there was no evidence of record that showed you served in the Gulf War theater of operations. There was no permanent residual or chronic disability subject to service connection shown by the service medical records or demonstrated by evidence follow service. Service connection was also denied on a direct basis. . Therefore, the evidence you submit must be new and relate to this fact.