Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Max Compensation For 38 U.s.c. 1114 (p)--what Does This Mean?

Rate this question


Guest Morgan

Question

I need some clarification of this statement in the CFR:

(i) The veteran is entitled to the compensation authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1114(o), or the maximum rate of compensation authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1114(p).

What does this mean: the maximum rate of compensation authorized under 38 U.S.C. 1114 (p)?

I know the compensation amount from the compensation table, but I need to know what entitles a veteran to the maximum rate. This implies that the rate for (p) varies, but the comp table only gives one rate for O and P.

What am I missing here?

Edited by Morgan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 2
  • Created
  • Last Reply

2 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

This what I could find, hope it helps:

-CITE-

38 USC Sec. 1114 01/19/04

-EXPCITE-

TITLE 38 - VETERANS' BENEFITS

PART II - GENERAL BENEFITS

CHAPTER 11 - COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY OR DEATH

SUBCHAPTER II - WARTIME DISABILITY COMPENSATION

-HEAD-

Sec. 1114. Rates of wartime disability compensation

(p) in the event the veteran's service-connected disabilities

exceed the requirements for any of the rates prescribed in this

section, the Secretary may allow the next higher rate or an

intermediate rate, but in no event in excess of $3,827. In the

event the veteran has suffered service-connected blindness with

5/200 visual acuity or less and (1) has also suffered bilateral

deafness (and the hearing impairment in either one or both ears

is service connected) rated at no less than 30 percent disabling,

the Secretary shall allow the next higher rate, or (2) has also

suffered service-connected total deafness in one ear or

service-connected anatomical loss or loss of use of one hand or

one foot, the Secretary shall allow the next intermediate rate,

but in no event in excess of $3,827. In the event the veteran has

suffered service-connected blindness, having only light

perception or less, and has also suffered bilateral deafness (and

the hearing impairment in either one or both ears is service

connected) rated at 10 or 20 percent disabling, the Secretary

shall allow the next intermediate rate, but in no event in excess

of $3,827. In the event the veteran has suffered the anatomical

loss or loss of use, or a combination of anatomical loss and loss

of use, of three extremities, the Secretary shall allow the next

higher rate or intermediate rate, but in no event in excess of

$3,827. Any intermediate rate under this subsection shall be

established at the arithmetic mean, rounded down to the nearest

dollar, between the two rates concerned;

Jim S. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

Thank you for taking time to search for this. I think this is exactly what I needed. I've searched high and low for something that made sense. Special Monthly Compensation reminds me of working with a Rubik's Cube. Remember those? But like the Cube, working though most complicated things in life, when you know how, is easy. I think you just helped me figure out this complicated level of VA compensation,and now it seems easy to understand. :P

The (p) level is for ratings that are 50 percent or more above a single condition rated at 100 percent P&T. Under Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) (p), a second condition or combined conditons rated 50 percent or more adds a half level, and a condition or combined conditions at 100 percent adds a full level on the Special Monthly Compensation table...and the veteran keeps any SMC (k) awards (now $87 per month for each functional or anatomical loss, I think). Multiple SMC (k)s are often awarded in these severe disability cases for conditions such as loss or loss of use of a hand, foot, or creative organ.

So as I understand this now, the maximum rate would be the combinations of ratings to include SMC (k) awards up to the amount of the O/P rate on the SMC compensation table. Once it goes there it has reached "the maximum compensation for 38 U.S.C. 1114 (p)." Under certain conditions, it then can convert to the next award level: SMC R(1). But if a veteran doesn't meet those conditions and he or she has (k) awards that add up to more than the P/O rate on the SMC table, the veteran loses the (k) compensation that exceeds that rate. A crappy way to do a veteran, but certainly of no great surprise with the VA!

Again, thank you. After months of trying to figure out this statement, I think I now get this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • spazbototto earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Paul Gretza earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Troy Spurlock went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • KMac1181 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • jERRYMCK earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 0 replies
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 replies
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use