@"Acute and not se
@rvice connec
@ted" whi
@le confirmingyour bicep and shoulder are "completely destroyed" is contradictory on its face — that's your appeal argument right there. Under Buchanan v. Nicholson, the VA cannot deny based on lack of STR documentation when you have a credible explanation for why it wasn't documented. Two months on light limited duty IS documentation of a chronic condition, not an acute one. For your appeal, the buddy statement is critical but frame it right: have them describe what they SAW (you falling, inability to use your arm, light duty status) not what they diagnosed. Under Jandreau, lay witnesses are competent to describe observable symptoms. Also — "acute" means it resolved. If your bicep and shoulder are currently destroyed, that disproves their own finding. Cite that contradiction explicitly in your Supplemental Claim.
