Our Method

An argument, not just an opinion.

Most nexus letters end where ours begin. A sentence of professional judgment carries no data behind it, and a C&P examiner or VA rater can discount it in a line. Every opinion we author is a structured, literature-backed causation argument — Hill’s criteria applied point by point, AMA Guides–based causation methodology, and cited peer-reviewed research establishing mechanism, plausibility, and clinical consistency.

Opinion-only letter

  • A conclusion stated without supporting data
  • No framework identified, no literature cited
  • Competing causes left unaddressed
  • Easy to discount as the provider's say-so

Our method

  • Hill's criteria worked through explicitly
  • AMA Guides-based causation methodology
  • Peer-reviewed citations for mechanism and plausibility
  • Differential etiology that rules alternatives in or out
  • Reasoning a rater can follow and verify

Framework One

Hill’s criteria for causation

Sir Austin Bradford Hill’s criteria are the recognized epidemiological framework for reasoning from association to causation. We do not gesture at them — each applicable criterion is addressed against the veteran’s own record and the published literature.

01

Strength of association

How strongly the exposure or in-service event is associated with the diagnosed condition in the published literature, not merely in impression.

02

Consistency

Whether the same association has been observed repeatedly across independent studies, populations, and clinical settings.

03

Specificity

Whether the exposure produces a recognizable pattern of injury consistent with the veteran's documented presentation.

04

Temporality

Whether the exposure clearly preceded onset — reconstructed from service treatment records, post-service care, and the veteran's clinical course.

05

Biological gradient

Whether greater duration, load, or intensity of exposure corresponds to greater risk or severity — highly relevant to cumulative spine and joint loading.

06

Plausibility

Whether a credible anatomic and physiologic mechanism explains the injury, supported by cited peer-reviewed research.

07

Coherence

Whether the causal explanation fits what is already known about the natural history and pathophysiology of the condition.

08

Experiment / analogy

Whether intervention data, biomechanical studies, or closely analogous exposures reinforce the causal inference.

Framework Two

AMA Guides–based causation methodology

The AMA Guides set out a disciplined sequence for causation analysis. It forces the reasoning into the open and requires that competing explanations be confronted rather than avoided.

  1. 01

    Establish the diagnosis

    Confirm the specific spine, nerve, or joint diagnosis with objective support — imaging, electrodiagnostics, examination findings, and treating-provider documentation.

  2. 02

    Characterize the exposure

    Document the in-service event or cumulative exposure in detail: mechanism, load, frequency, duration, protective equipment, and duty requirements.

  3. 03

    Review the scientific evidence

    Identify peer-reviewed literature and population-level incidence data addressing that exposure-condition relationship, and weigh its quality.

  4. 04

    Apply differential etiology

    Rule competing causes in or out on the record — age-related degeneration, post-service occupation, prior injury, comorbidity — rather than ignoring them.

  5. 05

    State the opinion and its basis

    Reach the 'at least as likely as not' standard explicitly, with the reasoning, criteria, and citations that support it laid out in writing.

Framework Three

The peer-reviewed record

Biological plausibility and clinical consistency are not assertions — they are claims that the literature either supports or does not. We cite established research on injury mechanism, population-level incidence in service members, and the natural history of the condition.

The result is a letter that can be checked. A rater who wants to test the reasoning can follow the citations rather than take a clinician’s word for it.

Why evidence beats assertion at the rating stage

C&P examiners and VA raters are evaluating the strength of the evidence, not just the opinion itself. A letter that says “I believe this is connected” is easy to discount.

A letter that says “this is connected, and here is the peer-reviewed literature establishing the mechanism, the population-level incidence data, and the causation framework applied” is much harder to dismiss.

Who applies it

A method is only as good as the person applying it.

Our opinions are authored by a Chiropractic Physician and university professor with a PhD in Health Sciences, an MS in Neuroscience, and advanced training in clinical neurology, who teaches pain physiology, neurological examination, and pathophysiology at the graduate and undergraduate levels. Doctoral-level academic training matters here: a nexus letter is a written argument, and it has to be structured, cited, and reasoned to survive scrutiny.

Ready for an evidence-based opinion?

Submit your details and we’ll confirm whether your claim fits our spine, nerve, and joint specialty. Completed opinions are delivered in 7 business days.

Get Started Here