For Anyone Who's Interested Here's Part Of My "s" Award Argument

[Pete53]

I see this as an "reductio ad absurdum" argument, but good luck anyway.

Its the VA that is absurd.

[Wings]

I do think this needs draft needs to be cleaned up and organized a little, I was getting lost trying to follow the logic. My brain is trained to follow order A-Z, 1, 2, 3

As I recall, you are fighting them on two fronts (also called arguments):

the first argument is that you do in fact meet the statutory requirement of 100% + 60% but the Secretary's application of the combined ratings schedule produces absurd results.

the second argument is that you do in fact meet the statutory requirement for "substantially housebound" but the Court has already ruled on that issue in Harris (citation).

~Wings

[carlie]

As I recall, you are fighting them on two fronts (also called arguments):

the first argument is that you do in fact meet the statutory requirement of 100% + 60% but the Secretary's application of the combined ratings schedule produces absurd results.

the second argument is that you do in fact meet the statutory requirement for "substantially housebound" but the Court has already ruled on that issue in Harris (citation).

~Wings

Ditto - and I would be sure both theories are stated, supported and addressed by BVA.

[Philip Rogers]

I thought I did and yes, it is confusing!

pr

Ditto - and I would be sure both theories are stated, supported and addressed by BVA.

[Philip Rogers]

wings - That is what was sent 1.5yrs ago and is what they just denied. I'm going to talk w/Bergmann & Moore, this wk, I hope, and maybe some others. I'm definitely going to the court, if only to address the 100+60 combined ratings table issue. Thanks!!!

pr

I do think this needs draft needs to be cleaned up and organized a little, I was getting lost trying to follow the logic. My brain is trained to follow order A-Z, 1, 2, 3

As I recall, you are fighting them on two fronts (also called arguments):

the first argument is that you do in fact meet the statutory requirement of 100% + 60% but the Secretary's application of the combined ratings schedule produces absurd results.

the second argument is that you do in fact meet the statutory requirement for "substantially housebound" but the Court has already ruled on that issue in Harris (citation).

~Wings

[Wings]

wings - That is what was sent 1.5yrs ago and is what they just denied. I'm going to talk w/Bergmann & Moore, this wk, I hope, and maybe some others. I'm definitely going to the court, if only to address the 100+60 combined ratings table issue. Thanks!!!

pr

x

x

x

I would raise both issues; that will keep the attorney's busy and the judges dissenting ;-) But whatever you decide, I support you! HUGS! ~Wings