Question For "interested"

[broncovet]

The issue of whether ratings are "combined" (VA fuzzy math) or "added" (regular math) for Bradley vs Peake does not appear to have been decided yet by the courts. IMHO, the RO's pretty much always takes a position "against" the Veteran, that means that Veterans cases will be decided unfavorably by the RO's, and the Veteran will be forced to appeal.

Online, I have heard a rating specialist opine that ratings will be combined by RSVR;s, that is, the RO's are taking a position unfavorable to the Veteran. (Suprise suprise..the RO is taking an unfavorable position toward the Veteran (satire)

IMHO, the "benefit of the doubt" should apply here, but the RO's only give the Veteran the "benefit of the doubt" when forced to do so by the courts. I do hope RO's take a more Veteran friendly position on this, but this is just not the history of the VA to do so.

[Philip Rogers]

J - thank you for your post, however I'm not understanging why you jumped in. My question was aimed specifically to "Interested" because I feel that the way he/she answers questions here, that he/she may be a VA insider and therefore have some inside knowledge as to how the VA handles these claims. While he/she didn't clarify that aspect of the question asked, "I feel" he/she sorta danced around the CRT portion, with regard to the VA's handling of the "s" award.

That portion of 38 USC 1114 is shown as follows:

"(i) Total plus 60 percent, or housebound; 38 U.S.C. 1114(s). The special monthly compensation provided by 38 U.S.C. 1114(s) is payable where the veteran has a single service-connected disability rated as 100 percent and,

(1) Has additional service-connected disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent, separate and distinct from the 100 percent service-connected disability and involving different anatomical segments or bodily systems, or

(2) Is permanently housebound by reason of service-connected disability or disabilities. This requirement is met when the veteran is substantially confined as a direct result of service-connected disabilities to his or her dwelling and the immediate premises or, if institutionalized, to the ward or clinical areas, and it is reasonably certain that the disability or disabilities and resultant confinement will continue throughout his or her lifetime."

Please note Congress used independently ratable at 60 percent not combined ratable at 60 percent. Congress was specific, it's just that the VA is misinterpreting Congress' intent.

If you are asking me to drop the topic, because you feel it's been beaten to death, just ask. I was merely asking for a clarification from someone "I believed" to be a VA insider, hoping to gain some insight as to the VA's way of thinking. Thanks and if I'm wrong you're welcome to slap me around a little, but just a little. jmo

pr

Folks, we have been through this one before. Recently a lady beat this issue down our throats. Remember?

The issue was the method the VA uses to calculate disabilities over and above the 100 percent category.

To my understanding that the disabilities are still evaluated with the Combined rating schedule.

Now I actually agree with Interested That this issue may need to be taken to another level.

The VA doesn't write the law, Congress does and perhaps they missed this one.

J

[jbasser]

No Flip I just wanted to clarify what would be needed to get this addressed. it is out of the VA Raters hands. Congress would have to look into it.

I posted in support of the question but also decided to mention the history of this issue with Hadit.

Thanks.

J

[Philip Rogers]

Okay, thanks John, sorry "I" misinterpreted your comment! I don't feel it's up to Congress. They were specific and the VA even spells it out correctly in M21, it's just that the VA's application is wrong. As I stated, I was just trying to see if an insider would spell it out, for me. Thanks again!! I do think that WACvet75 had it correct. Guess I'll have to pursue it further, once I settle in, here in NC, and get my RO's changed, altho I'm not sure I want to change RO's. White River Jct, VT, is used to me and I think if I could talk w/the service center manager, I could at least get part of "my" claim resolved. I know the VA will fight it due to the fact that it'll cost them a lot of money, to correct all those denials, much like the recent IHD/Nehmer claims.

pr

No Flip I just wanted to clarify what would be needed to get this addressed. it is out of the VA Raters hands. Congress would have to look into it.

I posted in support of the question but also decided to mention the history of this issue with Hadit.

Thanks.

J

Edited September 20, 2011 by Philip Rogers

[carlie]

IMHO, the "benefit of the doubt" should apply here, but the RO's only give the Veteran the "benefit of the doubt" when forced to do so by the courts.

bronco,

There would be absolutely no reason at all that would warrant the application of the BOD on this issue.

[carlie]

Please note Congress used independently ratable at 60 percent not combined ratable at 60 percent. Congress was specific, it's just that the VA is misinterpreting Congress' intent.

pr

The whole question as I understand it, is in regards to "independently ratable at 60 percent versus - combined ?