Va Rating Disabilities Electronically

[vaf]

I should probably have explained this better. According to our state VARO, that office is computing ratings "electronically." My first question is who approved the software and its use, and how do we know for sure how closely the formulas contained in this software program mimic the actual Combined Ratings Table in 38 CFR, Part 4, Subsection 4.25? Secondly, the statute clearly states the Table is to be used to compute ratings, there is no option to use any other standard of measurement. Finally, there's no mention in the statute of computing these ratings electronically, or what happens if the software produces a different rating than the actual Table. In our case, the VARO's software is interpreting 94.53 to equate to 94, instead of 95, which rounded up would be 100.

A standard of measurement that is not contained in 38 CFR threatens the accuracy of the rating system. Shaving tenths of a point off of a veterans rating could cost the veteran dearly, as it's doing in our case, and I find it hard to believe we're the only ones affected by this trick.

I've e-mailed the Veteran's Commission, and wrote letters to Steve Buyer and my congressional representatives that I consider this policy a violation of the terms and intent of the statute noted above and the purpose for the Combined Ratings Table.

If the VA wants to do away with the Table and utilize their discretionary, unratified software program, let's see someone attempt to codify it in 38 CFR.

[wallyg]

Vicki,

I hate to say it, but you cannot win this battle. It would seem that you have completely failed to understand the legalese in 4.25. as many people do.

This is from 38 CFR 4.25 (a). "This combined value will then be converted to the nearest number divisible by 10, and combined values ending in 5 will be adjusted upward."

...and this from 38 CFR 4.25 (B). "The conversion to the nearest degree divisible by 10 will be done only once per rating decision, will follow the combining of all disabilities, and will be the last procedure in determining the combined degree of disability."

First, 94.53 does NOT round to 95, as the FINAL digit is NOT 5 or higher, also, note the order in which the calculations are to be made, the division by ten is done first, therefore, there will NEVER be any other way to round up to a higher value. You will note that there is no mention of rounding ANY other digit, very specifically, just the FINAL one.

Second, the nearest degree divisible by 10 is 90, NOT 100.

That is the LEGAL way of looking at it, you are using COMMON SENSE, which in arguments with the Government, is a futile waste of time. You only viable argument would be that this defeats the spirit and intent of the law, in giving the veteran the benefit of any doubt.

It would seem that your best bet would be to obtain an additional 10% some way or another. This would give you the 1 point necessary to put you over the top. To have a final rating that involve decimal places must mean that there are bilateral factors involved, the thing to do is to check that they have been correctly calculated and applied. This is an area where many, many mistakes are made. The fact that there are two decimal places in the calculations is another area where the 'electronic' calculations can be attacked, as there is nothing that I can determine in 4.25 that would allow for more than 1 decimal place.

This sound like more VA trickery, to reduce the number of 100% awards.

If you would post, or send by e-mail, the complete list of awards and DCs/percentages, I would be happy to calculate them in STRICT accordance with 38 CFR.

Edited May 1, 2006 by wallyg

[vaf]

I can see your point, Wally. I was using the values on the actual Table. If one doesn't use any software at all, just using the Table itself, one gets 95, not 94 point anything. Here are the ratings:

60%

40%

30%

30%

20%

20%

10%

10%

10%

There's no authorization in 38 CFR to use anything other than the actual Table. What good is having the Table listed at all if they're not going to use it? We've got appeals going for additional ratings, but nothing that will come to a head in the short term.

Thanks Wally!

[vaf]

I can argue the point of intent and reasonable doubt, but I think it's wasted on the VARO, they're fully aware of what they're doing, and we've already written to them months ago and received no denial or SOC. We did get an e-mail response though, that basically said nothing except the rating at 90% was correct.

In the absence of a VARO response, is this something I can send directly to the Board while hoping we can get an additional 10% in the meantime?