Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • homepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

SMC-S confusion - TDIU +

Rate this question


hedgey

Question

I just got the award letter over the weekend granting me 30% for Irritable Bowel Syndrome as secondary to PTSD. My better half is positive that I should have been awarded SMC-S statutory based on my new ratings:

100% IU P&T - 70% for PTSD;

30% for IBS secondary to PTSD;

10% LF residuals injury;

20% LF residuals with RSD & metatarsalgia;

10% RF plantar fasciitis with RSD -

I researched some here on Hadit, and I found this in a thread from July :

If you have a true 100% schedular for one disease, or TDIU to stand in its stead, all the added disabilities must be extraneous to it or be completely different disease entities/musculature injuries even if they are rated secondary. Here's 38 CFR § 3.350(i):

 

(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

That was written by Asknod.

So my first question, which was whether TDIU was good enough to count as 100% seems to be answered.

My second question, as to where a condition rated as secondary can be counted... I'm not sure.

I called my VSO this morning and she said she would research it for me. She apologized that she didn't know the info right off the top of her head, but the SMC's are confusing on a good day...

I feel like a greedy bastard asking for more.  Then my other half say stop thinking that way and remember all the years (25 +) that I didn't ask for anything from the VA, not even a vaccine or flu shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
  • HadIt.com Elder

"I didn't ask for anything from the VA, not even a vaccine or flu shot." Actually, that's  quite common. The (in my opinion) majority of veterans prefer to have as little as possible to do with the VA, perhaps with the exception of educational benefits. I was willing to go through the hassle to get a VA home loan years ago, but, since I could meet the typical loan down-payment, it was not worth the trouble. 

Moving on, SMC rules are confusing, and in not a few cases, subject to interpretation.

TDIU -  It would depend on what condition(s) was/were used to grant TDIU. (the 100%) A single condition not rated as 100% scheduler can result in TDIU.  (VA Central gets involved in this in some way.)  PTSD can be such a condition.

The way I see it, then VA math starts over, and the other conditions are added together per the VA scheme.

There is still an ongoing argument concerning the use of VA math twice. 100% for a single condition in the simplest

examples sort of evades part of the issue.  And, just to add more fun, the courts give deference to the agency's

way of interpreting the laws.  

 

Edited by Chuck75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Yeah, you should be getting SMC (s).

Apparently TDIU can be a way of getting SMC (s) by itself. Congress intended to pay extra compensation to vets who can't leave home to earn an income as seen in Howell Vs. Nicholson. If a vet is TDIU, guess what? You're unemployable and can't leave home to earn an income, rendering you "substantially confined". Howell Vs. Nicholson states it loud and clear. I'm in the process of writing up a statement requesting it meself.

The Secretary, citing to Senate Report No. 1745 (June 27, 1960), notes that in passing section 1114(s) Congress intended to provide additional compensation for veterans who were unable to overcome their particular disabilities and leave the house in order to earn an income as opposed to an inability to leave the house at all.

https://asknod.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/cavc-howell-v-nicholson-what-smc-s-really-says/

Edited by bionoce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use