Yes! You can use AI to fill out Back (Thoracolumbar Spine) Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire

People often skip or partially fill the header fields (patient/veteran name, SSN, and date of examination) or enter values that don’t match the veteran’s claim file. This happens because the form starts with administrative items that feel “obvious” or are assumed to be on another page. Missing or inconsistent identifiers can delay processing or cause the DBQ to be rejected as not clearly attributable to the correct veteran. Always complete all header identifiers exactly as they appear in VA records and ensure the exam date reflects the actual evaluation date.

A common error is checking a box without listing the required third-party organization/individual name(s), or selecting “Other” without a description. This occurs because the request source seems administrative, but VA uses it to understand context and potential conflicts. Incomplete requester information can trigger follow-up requests or questions about authenticity. If “Third party” is selected, list the full legal name(s); if “Other,” provide a clear explanation.

Examiners sometimes mark “Was the Veteran examined in person?” inconsistently with later remarks (e.g., stating face-to-face but earlier indicating “No,” or vice versa). This usually happens when copying prior templates or rushing through yes/no items. Contradictions can undermine credibility and lead VA to discount the DBQ or request a new exam. Ensure the modality answers are consistent across the checkbox section and the remarks (and describe the method if not in-person).

Many submissions check “Records reviewed” but fail to identify which records were reviewed and the date range, or they list generic items without specifics. This happens because the prompt is easy to overlook and clinicians assume “STRs reviewed” is sufficient. VA may view the opinion as less probative if it’s unclear what evidence informed the findings. List the exact record types (STRs, VA treatment, private records) and include an approximate date range (e.g., 2012–2025).

A frequent mistake is selecting diagnoses (e.g., lumbosacral strain, DDD, radiculopathy) but leaving ICD codes and diagnosis dates blank or mixing claimed conditions with confirmed diagnoses. This occurs because clinicians focus on narrative history and forget the structured fields. Missing codes/dates can create ambiguity about what is being diagnosed “today” versus historically, which can affect rating decisions. Provide ICD-10 codes when requested and use a clear diagnosis date (initial diagnosis date or the exam date if newly diagnosed).

People often mark that flare-ups or functional loss exist but do not document frequency, duration, precipitating/alleviating factors, severity, and functional impact in the veteran’s own words. This happens because the narrative boxes are time-consuming and the form repeats similar concepts. Without these details, VA may be unable to evaluate severity accurately and may order another exam. Capture a structured description (how often, how long, what triggers, what helps, and what the veteran cannot do during flare-ups).

Common data-entry errors include leaving ROM endpoints blank, entering text instead of degrees, swapping left/right values, or placing numbers in the wrong line (e.g., rotation values in flexion fields). This happens because the ROM table is dense and easy to misread, especially when transcribing from notes. Incorrect ROM entries can directly change the rating outcome or make the DBQ internally inconsistent. Enter numeric degree values for each movement, double-check left vs right, and confirm they align with the narrative and pain findings.

Examiners frequently document “pain present” but fail to specify whether pain occurs on active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-bearing, or they don’t explain why testing wasn’t performed. This happens because these requirements are easy to miss and may not be part of routine clinical documentation. VA may consider the exam inadequate if these elements are omitted without explanation. Explicitly check all applicable pain contexts and, if any testing is not performed, provide a medically specific rationale.

A very common issue is leaving the “repeated use over time” and “flare-ups” estimated ROM fields blank, or stating an estimate cannot be provided without giving a case-specific explanation. This happens because the veteran is rarely examined during a flare-up and clinicians hesitate to estimate. VA guidance expects an estimate based on procurable evidence (veteran statements, records, clinical judgment) unless truly not feasible, and inadequate explanations can lead to remand or re-exam. Provide estimated degrees when possible and cite the veteran’s description and clinical reasoning; if not feasible, explain specifically what information is missing and why it prevents estimation.

Submissions often state “bilateral radiculopathy” but leave strength grades, DTRs, sensory dermatomes, or straight leg raise results blank or inconsistent with the severity selected. This happens because the neuro exam spans multiple sections and it’s easy to overlook one table. Inconsistencies can cause VA to question the diagnosis or severity level and may reduce the weight of the DBQ. Complete all neuro objective fields and ensure the radiculopathy severity and nerve roots selected match the documented deficits.

Many people mark IVDS episodes requiring bed rest based on the veteran’s self-reported “staying in bed,” without confirming physician-prescribed bed rest and treatment. This happens because the term “bed rest” is interpreted casually, but VA’s criteria are specific. Incorrectly indicating prescribed bed rest can lead to credibility issues or an inaccurate rating basis. Only check bed-rest episodes if there is documentation of physician-prescribed bed rest and treatment, and list the supporting records, dates, and facility/provider.