Chief Executive Officer, American College of Radiology.
Karen H. Antman
Dean, Boston University School of Medicine.
Dr. Rania Hito is an Assistant Professor of Radiology for the Boston University School Medicine’s Neuroradiology Division. Dr. Hito is also a Neuroradiologist for the VA Boston Healthcare System. Dr. Hito completed her fellowship in Neuroradiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, her Radiology residency at Boston Medical Center and her internship in Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. She attended Boston University where she received her BS Biochemistry, MA in Biotechnology, & MD in Radiology. Source: https://www.bumc.bu.edu/busm/profile/rania-hito/
On or about March 28, 2016, at the request of my rheumatologist, I went to the VA Boston (Jamaica Plains Clinic) for an xray of my lumbar spine. Rania Hito was the radiologist who performed the xray test. On or about March 31, 2016, Judge Banfield at the Board of Veterans Appeals issued a “remand” on my claim for service connection, ordering a spine and knee examination.
On or about August 20, 2016, I went back to Jamaica Plains Clinic for the medical examination. The medical examiner was Daniel Michael Frazee, a physicians assistant.
Attached, find an image of the spine examination conducted by Daniel Michael Frazee, very clearly, you can see that he cites the xray study produced by Rania Hito on March 28, 2016. On that same day, Daniel Michael Frazee produced a negative medical opinion against the veteran.
The first problem that I noticed with the xrays produced by Rania Hito is that it contradicts the medical history; specifically, two xray studies of the lumbar spine done at VA El Paso on August 17, 2011, and the second one done on January 30, 2012.
The first xray done on August 17, 2011, at VA El Paso, clearly states: “straightening of the lumbar curvature.” The second xray done on January 30, 2012, also states: “there is straightening of the curvature and is seen in the lateral projection.”
Now, consider the contradiction that results when we look at the work produced by Rania Hito on March 28, 2016: “There is preservation of the normal lumbar lordosis…Unremarkable radiographs of the thoracic and lumbar spine without findings to suggest ankylosing spondylitis."
The two relevant points to our discussion are: the straightening of the lumbar curvature and the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis. These two points are key elements to establish service connection, if the veteran doesn’t have any of these two, there cannot be a valid claim for service connection.
According to medical literature, image attached, “over time, axial arthritis can progress from the sacroiliac joints, gradually ascending to involve the cervical spine. Limited mobility results from spinal deformities such as FLATTENING OF THE LUMBAR LORDOSIS. Source: Am. Fam. Physician. 2004, June 15; 69(12) 2853-2860. With this piece of literature we know that the FLATTENING OF THE LUMBAR CURVATURE is a symptom of Ankylosing Spondylitis. And from this knowledge, we can make the inference that the xrays produced by Rania Hito have no purpose other than to negatively impact the veterans claim for service connection.
In as much as the medical examiner, Daniel Michael Frazee, relied on the work of Rania Hito, the veterans right to a fair hearing was tainted by consideration of the erroneous medical work produced by Rania Hito. Since 2016, I have made every effort to correct this problem without success. consider the following caselaw: "VA has a duty to address all arguments put forth by a claimant and/or theories under which entitlement to benefits sought may be awarded. Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet App. 545, 552 (2008) (noting that the Board is required to consider all issues raised either by the claimant or reasonably by the evidence of record)."
I am asking the two of you, Dr William T.Thorwath and Dr. Karen H. Antman, to assume a leadership position against the manipulation of physicians at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Please look into this matter to resolve the contradiction that arises from the work of Rania Hito. Request Rania Hito to produce a sworn statement explaining how she arrived at her conclusions. Regardless of what the corrupt union leaders say at the Department of Veterans Affairs, please, look into this matter and do an independent investigation. From there, you’ll be able to provide the leadership needed to protect veterans and physicians alike. The American Democracy needs the medical community to get involved. Thank You.
other sources:
The Board points out that a key element in establishing service connection is to show that a veteran currently has a diagnosis or symptoms of a disability for which service connection is sought. See 38 USCA paragraph 1110, 1131 and 38 CFR paragraph 3.303. In the absence of objective findings of pathology, a diagnosis or complaints, the Board must conclude that there is no current reliable and/or probative evidence indicating that the Veteran has left or right wrist disability for which service connection may be granted.
SUFFOLK LAW REVIEW:
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that an applicant for veteran’s disability benefits possesses a constitutionally protected property interest in those benefits, requiring procedural due process during the application process. In considering the claim of a veteran who injured his back while serving in the military, the court chronicled the veteran’s attempts to obtain a disability benefit beginning in 1974.
After repeated denials, the veteran eventually discovered that the officials who rejected his claim erroneously relied on a medical record that had been improperly altered. After the BVA refused to reconsider its decision in light of the tainted medical record, the veteran unsuccessfully appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran’s Claims. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that a veteran’s entitlement to disability benefits is a property interest protected by the Dure Process Clause of the Firth Amendment.
The court applied several circuit court decisions holding when government benefits are nondiscretionary, an applicant for those benefits, as well as a recipient, possesses a property interest protected by due process. The court then held that the veteran’s right to a fair hearing was tainted by consideration of the erroneous medical record. (44 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 545, *549)
Rania Hito, MD Reviews
William T. Thorwarth Jr., MD, FACR
Chief Executive Officer, American College of Radiology.
Karen H. Antman
Dean, Boston University School of Medicine.
Dr. Rania Hito is an Assistant Professor of Radiology for the Boston University School Medicine’s Neuroradiology Division. Dr. Hito is also a Neuroradiologist for the VA Boston Healthcare System. Dr. Hito completed her fellowship in Neuroradiology at Massachusetts General Hospital, her Radiology residency at Boston Medical Center and her internship in Internal Medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. She attended Boston University where she received her BS Biochemistry, MA in Biotechnology, & MD in Radiology. Source: https://www.bumc.bu.edu/busm/profile/rania-hito/
On or about March 28, 2016, at the request of my rheumatologist, I went to the VA Boston (Jamaica Plains Clinic) for an xray of my lumbar spine. Rania Hito was the radiologist who performed the xray test. On or about March 31, 2016, Judge Banfield at the Board of Veterans Appeals issued a “remand” on my claim for service connection, ordering a spine and knee examination.
On or about August 20, 2016, I went back to Jamaica Plains Clinic for the medical examination. The medical examiner was Daniel Michael Frazee, a physicians assistant.
Attached, find an image of the spine examination conducted by Daniel Michael Frazee, very clearly, you can see that he cites the xray study produced by Rania Hito on March 28, 2016. On that same day, Daniel Michael Frazee produced a negative medical opinion against the veteran.
The first problem that I noticed with the xrays produced by Rania Hito is that it contradicts the medical history; specifically, two xray studies of the lumbar spine done at VA El Paso on August 17, 2011, and the second one done on January 30, 2012.
The first xray done on August 17, 2011, at VA El Paso, clearly states: “straightening of the lumbar curvature.” The second xray done on January 30, 2012, also states: “there is straightening of the curvature and is seen in the lateral projection.”
Now, consider the contradiction that results when we look at the work produced by Rania Hito on March 28, 2016: “There is preservation of the normal lumbar lordosis…Unremarkable radiographs of the thoracic and lumbar spine without findings to suggest ankylosing spondylitis."
The two relevant points to our discussion are: the straightening of the lumbar curvature and the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis. These two points are key elements to establish service connection, if the veteran doesn’t have any of these two, there cannot be a valid claim for service connection.
According to medical literature, image attached, “over time, axial arthritis can progress from the sacroiliac joints, gradually ascending to involve the cervical spine. Limited mobility results from spinal deformities such as FLATTENING OF THE LUMBAR LORDOSIS. Source: Am. Fam. Physician. 2004, June 15; 69(12) 2853-2860. With this piece of literature we know that the FLATTENING OF THE LUMBAR CURVATURE is a symptom of Ankylosing Spondylitis. And from this knowledge, we can make the inference that the xrays produced by Rania Hito have no purpose other than to negatively impact the veterans claim for service connection.
In as much as the medical examiner, Daniel Michael Frazee, relied on the work of Rania Hito, the veterans right to a fair hearing was tainted by consideration of the erroneous medical work produced by Rania Hito. Since 2016, I have made every effort to correct this problem without success. consider the following caselaw: "VA has a duty to address all arguments put forth by a claimant and/or theories under which entitlement to benefits sought may be awarded. Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet App. 545, 552 (2008) (noting that the Board is required to consider all issues raised either by the claimant or reasonably by the evidence of record)."
I am asking the two of you, Dr William T.Thorwath and Dr. Karen H. Antman, to assume a leadership position against the manipulation of physicians at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Please look into this matter to resolve the contradiction that arises from the work of Rania Hito. Request Rania Hito to produce a sworn statement explaining how she arrived at her conclusions. Regardless of what the corrupt union leaders say at the Department of Veterans Affairs, please, look into this matter and do an independent investigation. From there, you’ll be able to provide the leadership needed to protect veterans and physicians alike. The American Democracy needs the medical community to get involved. Thank You.
other sources:
The Board points out that a key element in establishing service connection is to show that a veteran currently has a diagnosis or symptoms of a disability for which service connection is sought. See 38 USCA paragraph 1110, 1131 and 38 CFR paragraph 3.303. In the absence of objective findings of pathology, a diagnosis or complaints, the Board must conclude that there is no current reliable and/or probative evidence indicating that the Veteran has left or right wrist disability for which service connection may be granted.
SUFFOLK LAW REVIEW:
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that an applicant for veteran’s disability benefits possesses a constitutionally protected property interest in those benefits, requiring procedural due process during the application process. In considering the claim of a veteran who injured his back while serving in the military, the court chronicled the veteran’s attempts to obtain a disability benefit beginning in 1974.
After repeated denials, the veteran eventually discovered that the officials who rejected his claim erroneously relied on a medical record that had been improperly altered. After the BVA refused to reconsider its decision in light of the tainted medical record, the veteran unsuccessfully appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veteran’s Claims. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that a veteran’s entitlement to disability benefits is a property interest protected by the Dure Process Clause of the Firth Amendment.
The court applied several circuit court decisions holding when government benefits are nondiscretionary, an applicant for those benefits, as well as a recipient, possesses a property interest protected by due process. The court then held that the veteran’s right to a fair hearing was tainted by consideration of the erroneous medical record. (44 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 545, *549)