VetJustice.aiJustice for Every Veteran
← HomeTake the tour
Home / Nexus letter drafts

Nexus letter drafts built on the record, and checked before signing

A nexus letter is often what a claim turns on. VetJustice Pro drafts one for each condition you choose, built on the evidence the analysis found, for a qualified medical professional to review, edit and sign.

What a nexus letter does

To grant service connection, VA needs three things: a current diagnosis, an event, injury or illness during service, and a medical link between them — the “nexus.” Records usually show the first two; the link is often what’s missing.

A nexus letter is a qualified medical professional’s written opinion that the veteran’s condition is at least as likely as not caused or made worse by service, or by a condition VA already rates, with the reasons. VA weighs it with the rest of the evidence.

Built on the veteran’s own records

The draft walks through the in-service event and the later records that tie it to today’s condition, citing each by date, document and page. It argues direct service connection, or secondary connection under 38 CFR 3.310 when there is a primary condition.

Ready for the right signer

The signer can be the veteran’s own treating physician, an independent physician, or a nurse practitioner or physician assistant whose training fits the condition. Their name, credentials and clinical findings are left for them to complete. Download the draft as PDF or Word.

Checked before anyone signs

As soon as a draft is ready, a second read checks it against the same records and lists what to fix or confirm: statements the records don’t support, anything that contradicts itself, misstated law, and every published source cited, since only a person can confirm a source.

A draft, not an opinion

Until a qualified medical professional signs it, a nexus letter draft carries no evidentiary weight, and VetJustice never presents it otherwise. The check catches many problems, not all of them: read every draft against the records before it goes out.

See an example

A nexus letter draft VetJustice Pro wrote for its fictional sample veteran, John T. Sample, from his records, shown exactly as the app produced it. The bracketed spaces are for the qualified medical professional who reviews, edits and signs it; until then it is a draft.

DRAFT — FOR REVIEW AND SIGNATURE BY A QUALIFIED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL

[FULL NAME, CREDENTIALS] [SPECIALTY] [PRACTICE NAME] [ADDRESS] [PHONE] [DATE] Re: Nexus Letter Veteran: John T. Sample Date of Birth: [DOB] VA File Number: [VA FILE NUMBER] Condition: Seronegative Spondyloarthropathy / Reactive Arthritis, evaluated as Rheumatoid Arthritis (VASRD Code 5002) Section I — Qualifications I have prepared this opinion based on review of John T. Sample's service treatment records and post-service medical records as cited below. [I have also personally examined Mr. Sample on [EXAMINATION DATE].] My qualifications relevant to this opinion are: [EDUCATION, TRAINING, AND CLINICAL EXPERIENCE RELEVANT TO INFLAMMATORY ARTHRITIS AND SPONDYLOARTHROPATHY]. The Department of Veterans Affairs considers the fit between a signer's training and experience and the medical question at issue in weighing this opinion. Section II — Clinical Findings On current evaluation, Mr. Sample presents with the following: [CLINICAL FINDINGS]. Objective findings typically documented in seronegative spondyloarthropathy/reactive arthritis include an asymmetric oligoarthritis or polyarthritis involving the lower extremities, inflammatory low back or buttock pain, sacroiliac joint tenderness, enthesitis (particularly Achilles tendon and plantar fascia insertions), reduced spinal and hip range of motion, and radiographic sacroiliitis ranging from subtle sclerosis to frank ankylosis. Laboratory findings often include a negative rheumatoid factor and antinuclear antibody panel, with a substantial proportion of affected individuals carrying the HLA-B27 allele. Imaging over time typically shows progression from sacroiliac joint sclerosis to erosive change and eventual fusion if untreated, and secondary degenerative change in weight-bearing joints subjected to altered biomechanics from chronic inflammatory disease. Section III — Evidence in the Record The service and post-service record documents the following relevant course: - Sick call record, January 15, 1991 (Sample veteran records.pdf, p. 1): 1st FSSG Sick Call, Al Jubail, Saudi Arabia. Severe watery diarrhea for five days with fever of 101.4°F. Stool culture positive for Salmonella enteritidis. Treated with oral rehydration and ciprofloxacin 500 mg for seven days; returned to duty. - Battalion aid station record, February 28, 1991 (Sample veteran records.pdf, p. 2): 1st FSSG Battalion Aid Station, Kuwait Theater. Bilateral knee and ankle pain occurring after the gastrointestinal illness above, treated with NSAIDs and rest and attributed at the time to "post-viral arthralgia." Returned to duty. - Rheumatology workup, August 13, 2007 (Sample veteran records.pdf, p. 9): University Health System Rheumatology, San Antonio, TX. Referral for "possible inflammatory vs. degenerative polyarthritis." RF negative, ANA negative. HLA-B27 was ordered but not completed due to insurance denial. The treating rheumatologist recorded: "Cannot rule out seronegative spondyloarthropathy." - Rheumatology record, March 10, 2015 (Sample veteran records.pdf, p. 14): University Health System Rheumatology, San Antonio, TX. HLA-B27 returned positive. Sacroiliac joint X-ray showed bilateral Grade II sacroiliitis with sclerosis, described as a "rosary bead" appearance "consistent with ankylosing spondylitis/reactive arthritis spectrum." The chart notes: "Prior Salmonella gastroenteritis documented 1991 — consistent with reactive arthritis trigger." Started on naproxen with referral to VA rheumatology. - VA radiology record, June 5, 2018 (Sample veteran records.pdf, p. 15): VA San Antonio Radiology. Bilateral hip MRI showed progressive degenerative joint disease with labral fraying. The sacroiliac joints were not included in the imaging protocol despite the documented sacroiliitis history. The radiologist recommended "clinical correlation recommended for axial spondyloarthropathy." The record shows bilateral lower-extremity joint pain beginning in February 1991, within six weeks of a documented Salmonella enteritidis infection, evaluated in service as post-viral arthralgia. The next documented joint evaluation is the 2007 rheumatology workup, which already raised spondyloarthropathy on the differential. The 2015 record establishes the HLA-B27 positivity and imaging findings that a 2007 provider could not obtain, and explicitly connects those findings back to the 1991 Salmonella infection. The 2018 VA imaging, while not protocoled to re-image the sacroiliac joints, prompted the radiologist's own recommendation for clinical correlation for axial spondyloarthropathy — a recommendation the claims file does not show was ever completed. Section IV — Review of Medical Literature Reactive arthritis is a form of seronegative spondyloarthropathy triggered by a preceding gastrointestinal or genitourinary infection, classically caused by Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Campylobacter, or Chlamydia species. The pathophysiology involves an aberrant immune response to bacterial antigens in a genetically susceptible host, with molecular mimicry between microbial peptides and self-antigens presented on HLA-B27 driving a sustained inflammatory synovitis and enthesitis that characteristically involves the sacroiliac joints and lower-extremity large joints. The interval between the triggering infection and onset of joint symptoms is typically days to a few weeks, which is consistent with the six-week interval documented here between the Salmonella enteritidis infection and the onset of bilateral knee and ankle pain. HLA-B27 positivity is present in a minority of the general population but is strongly overrepresented among individuals who develop reactive arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis following an enteric infection, and its presence is considered a major risk factor for chronicity and for radiographic sacroiliitis (Braun J, Sieper J, "Ankylosing spondylitis," Lancet, 2007). The finding of bilateral Grade II sacroiliitis on plain film, combined with HLA-B27 positivity, meets recognized imaging criteria used in the modified New York classification for spondyloarthropathy, and is a hallmark finding of the reactive arthritis/spondyloarthropathy spectrum rather than of mechanical or degenerative joint disease. Once triggered, the disease course is typically one of a chronic or relapsing-remitting inflammatory arthropathy rather than a self-limited process, which is consistent with a single underlying systemic disease presenting sequentially across multiple joints over years, as opposed to several unrelated degenerative conditions. The current VA evaluation of Mr. Sample's joint complaints as eight separate musculoskeletal ratings under codes 5003, 5237, 5239, and 5276 does not reflect this unifying pathophysiology. Seronegative spondyloarthropathy is properly evaluated under VASRD Diagnostic Code 5002, which contemplates a single systemic inflammatory joint disease with multiple sites of involvement, consistent with the rheumatologic findings in this record. Section V — Medical Opinion Because arthritis is a chronic disease listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), the threshold question is whether the record shows this disease "shown as such" in service, entitling Mr. Sample to the chronicity rule of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) without need to show continuity of symptomatology. The February 28, 1991 record, evaluated together with the January 15, 1991 Salmonella enteritidis diagnosis six weeks earlier, documents the combination of an identified inflammatory trigger and a bilateral, symmetric lower-extremity arthralgia consistent with reactive arthritis, not an isolated joint complaint. Read together, these two records establish the inflammatory arthropathy as such in service, even though the treating providers at the time labeled it "post-viral arthralgia" rather than reactive arthritis. It is my opinion that it is at least as likely as not that Mr. Sample's seronegative spondyloarthropathy/reactive arthritis, now evaluated under VASRD 5002, is the same chronic disease process documented in service in 1991. The absence of rheumatologic evaluation between 1991 and 2007 is a gap in the record, not a break attributable to a different disease: reactive arthritis is well recognized to follow a relapsing or smoldering course over years before definitive markers such as HLA-B27 and sacroiliac imaging are obtained, and the 2007 record already identifies the same diagnostic question later confirmed in 2015. The 2015 record's own clinical impression — that the 1991 Salmonella infection is "consistent with reactive arthritis trigger" — corroborates this opinion from within the treating record itself. I have considered whether any intercurrent cause severs this link. The naproxen and other NSAIDs started in 2007 and continued thereafter are treatment for the inflammatory arthropathy itself, not an independent cause of it, and do not sever the nexus to the in-service onset. No other intercurrent injury or unrelated disease process is documented in this record that would account for the bilateral, HLA-B27-associated, sacroiliac-predominant joint disease shown on imaging. Section VI — Legal Framework This opinion applies 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) and (b), § 3.304, and § 3.102. Arthritis is listed as a chronic disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). Under § 3.303(b) and Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013), where a chronic disease is shown as such in service, based on a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify it and sufficient observation to establish chronicity, subsequent manifestations of the same disease at any later date are service connected unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes; continuity of symptomatology is required only where the in-service condition is not shown to be chronic. I have applied the chronicity rule as primary above, given the 1991 records. To the extent VA finds those records insufficient to establish chronicity in service, the 2007 and 2015 records document the same disease process at the earliest points it was diagnostically confirmed, which would support service connection under the fallback continuity-of-symptomatology analysis. Reasonable doubt is to be resolved in the veteran's favor under § 3.102. Section VII — Conclusion Based on the service treatment records documenting Salmonella enteritidis followed within six weeks by bilateral inflammatory arthralgia, and the subsequent rheumatologic confirmation of HLA-B27 positivity and bilateral sacroiliitis explicitly linked by the treating rheumatologist to that same 1991 infection, it is my opinion that it is at least as likely as not that Mr. Sample's seronegative spondyloarthropathy/reactive arthritis is the same chronic disease process that began in service in 1991, properly evaluated under VASRD Diagnostic Code 5002. I am available to provide further clarification or documentation as needed. [FULL NAME, CREDENTIALS] [LICENSE #] [STATE] [DATE]

Check before signing: 7 to fix, 1 source to confirm

VetJustice Pro then read the draft against the same records and listed what to fix before anyone signs. In this draft it caught, for example, that the letter dates the naproxen to 2007 when the records show 2015. The check catches many problems, not all, and its notes are machine-written, so each one is confirmed against the records.

  • Not supported by the records

    “The February 28, 1991 record, evaluated together with the January 15, 1991 Salmonella enteritidis diagnosis six weeks earlier, documents the combination of an identified inflammatory trigger and a bilateral, symmetric lower-extremity arthralgia consistent with reactive arthritis, not an isolated joint complaint”

    The 1991 record documents joint aches attributed to 'post-viral arthralgia,' not a diagnosis of reactive arthritis or arthritis 'shown as such.' Calling this record a diagnosis of the chronic disease overstates what the evidence shows, similar to calling joint aches arthritis.

    Fix: State that the 1991 records show joint pain attributed to post-viral arthralgia, and argue (rather than assert as established fact) that this combination is sufficient to meet the chronicity threshold, making clear this is the letter's interpretation.

  • Not supported by the records

    “reactive arthritis is well recognized to follow a relapsing or smoldering course over years before definitive markers such as HLA-B27 and sacroiliac imaging are obtained”

    This is a general medical claim used to fill the 1991-2007 gap with an inferred continuous disease course that no record documents; the records show only isolated visits, not a smoldering course between them.

    Fix: Remove or qualify this claim so it is not presented as a documented continuity of this veteran's condition during the gap.

  • Not supported by the records

    “The naproxen and other NSAIDs started in 2007 and continued thereafter are treatment for the inflammatory arthropathy itself”

    The record shows naproxen prescribed in 2015 (not 2007) with a referral to VA rheumatology; the 2007 record lists no naproxen, only RF/ANA/HLA-B27 labs ordered. The letter also asserts NSAIDs 'continued thereafter' from 2007, which is not documented.

    Fix: Correct the date naproxen was started (2015, per the record) and remove the unsupported claim that NSAIDs continued from 2007 onward.

  • Not supported by the records

    “consistent with the six-week interval documented here between the Salmonella enteritidis infection and the onset of bilateral knee and ankle pain”

    This is arithmetically fine (Jan 15 to Feb 28 is about six weeks), but earlier the letter also uses this same 'six weeks' figure to assert an established diagnostic link rather than an inference — flagging here because the surrounding literature claim uses this interval to imply causation the records do not establish.

    Fix: Confirm the interval is being used only to support plausibility of a trigger-response relationship, not as a proven causal fact.

  • Not supported by the records

    “meets recognized imaging criteria used in the modified New York classification for spondyloarthropathy”

    The modified New York criteria are diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis requiring bilateral grade 2-4 or unilateral grade 3-4 sacroiliitis plus clinical criteria; the letter does not show the clinical criteria (e.g., limited lumbar motion, chest expansion, inflammatory back pain history) were ever assessed in this veteran's record, so claiming the criteria are 'met' overstates the evidence.

    Fix: State only that the imaging finding is consistent with, not that it meets, the modified New York classification, unless the clinical criteria are documented in the record.

  • Legal point

    “Seronegative spondyloarthropathy is properly evaluated under VASRD Diagnostic Code 5002, which contemplates a single systemic inflammatory joint disease with multiple sites of involvement”

    VASRD 5002 is specifically the rheumatoid arthritis diagnostic code; using it as the 'proper' code for seronegative spondyloarthropathy/reactive arthritis is a medical rating opinion presented as settled law, and the letter does not address that ankylosing spondylitis/spondyloarthropathy has its own applicable codes (e.g., 5240) under VASRD rather than 5002.

    Fix: Confirm with the signer whether 5002 or a spine-specific diagnostic code is the medically and legally correct code for this condition, and adjust if incorrect.

  • Legal point

    “No other intercurrent injury or unrelated disease process is documented in this”

    The letter says there is no intercurrent cause. VA can argue that anything after service which could cause the condition (for example, a medication started years later) is one, and this is where a chronicity argument is usually attacked.

    Fix: Check the records for any later exposure; if there is one, name it and explain why it does not sever the link (for example, that it was treatment for a service-connected condition).

  • Source to confirm

    “Braun J, Sieper J, "Ankylosing spondylitis," Lancet, 2007”

    Braun J, Sieper J, 'Ankylosing spondylitis,' Lancet 2007 is a real, frequently cited review article; however, the letter does not show what specific findings were reviewed or that the pin-cited claims (HLA-B27 as major risk factor for chronicity/radiographic sacroiliitis) are properly attributed to this particular article.

    Fix: Confirm this citation is accurate and that the cited article supports the specific propositions attributed to it.

See it on a sample case

A narrated tour of the working app on a fictional veteran, no sign-in needed.