Readers of Tom Philpott’s Military Update column sound off.
Former Rating Specialist Attests to ‘IU’ Problem
Regarding your column on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ lax oversight of disability ratings for Individual Unemployability (IU), I can say from first-hand experience it has been a poorly kept secret for many years.
I worked for the VA from 1973 to 1988, spending four of those years as rating specialist and four more as supervisory claims examiner. While I was a rating specialist, the VA conducted a nationwide review of IU cases. As I recall, it found that a third of cases were decided correctly, a third were questionable or lacking sufficiently developed evidence, and a third contained “clear and unmistakable error.”
An example of a clear error was a 60-plus WWII veteran who worked his whole life in a physical job and retired due to a job-related injury after he was 60. He had static combat-related wounds that combined to a rating of 60 percent disabled. He had been placed on IU with nothing more than his application. He had not even claimed his service-connected injuries had in any way made him unable to work.
Many years ago the adjudication officer of the Seattle VA Regional Office had made it policy that veterans with qualifying percentages would get IU when they retired at any age, and without any examination to see if their service-related condition had worsened to cause them to be unable to work.
By the late 1970s, the WWII generation of rating specialists were retiring and being replaced by Vietnam-era veterans. We all knew that the former practice was not permitted by VA regulation, so we did not do that. Your article indicates that 79 percent of new IU ratings go to veterans over age 60. So it sounds like that long-ago discredited policy has resurfaced.
When I left the VA in 1988 the Court of Veteran’s Appeals was just being organized. Friends who continued to work at the VA said the court imposed huge procedural burdens on the rating process. Cases that were clear-cut and required only a short rating narrative to support findings became pages long to comply with court requirements. Case after case was remanded for further paperwork. The court’s effect on the rating process should be studied.
Congress gets involved periodically too and enacts “VA Medicine.” That means making causal connections between medical conditions that are not supported by science but favored by veterans’ groups.
The VA employees I knew were competent and hardworking. The problem is a rating schedule that has not been scrutinized for half a century, "medicine" influenced by powerful political forces and a legal review system that dramatically burdens the whole process.
ROBERT CARPENTER
Bremerton, Wash.
The GAO recommendation that VA tighten its oversight of the IU rating is long overdue.
While working as a Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Officer, I complained about IU decisions for several years. In extreme cases, veterans said they had been prompted by their service officers to make these claims and to abandon jobs and rehabilitation programs to support their claims.
This occurred following a determination by the vocational rehabilitation staff that the veteran is "employable" and that the opportunity for rehabilitation to a suitable job is feasible.
While working as a Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Officer, I complained about IU decisions for several years. In extreme cases, veterans said they had been prompted by their service officers to make these claims and to abandon jobs and rehabilitation programs to support their claims.
This occurred following a determination by the vocational rehabilitation staff that the veteran is "employable" and that the opportunity for rehabilitation to a suitable job is feasible.
Question
Old 5311
Disgust Over IU Problem
Tom Philpott | June 23, 2006
Readers of Tom Philpott’s Military Update column sound off.
Former Rating Specialist Attests to ‘IU’ Problem
Regarding your column on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ lax oversight of disability ratings for Individual Unemployability (IU), I can say from first-hand experience it has been a poorly kept secret for many years.
I worked for the VA from 1973 to 1988, spending four of those years as rating specialist and four more as supervisory claims examiner. While I was a rating specialist, the VA conducted a nationwide review of IU cases. As I recall, it found that a third of cases were decided correctly, a third were questionable or lacking sufficiently developed evidence, and a third contained “clear and unmistakable error.”
An example of a clear error was a 60-plus WWII veteran who worked his whole life in a physical job and retired due to a job-related injury after he was 60. He had static combat-related wounds that combined to a rating of 60 percent disabled. He had been placed on IU with nothing more than his application. He had not even claimed his service-connected injuries had in any way made him unable to work.
Many years ago the adjudication officer of the Seattle VA Regional Office had made it policy that veterans with qualifying percentages would get IU when they retired at any age, and without any examination to see if their service-related condition had worsened to cause them to be unable to work.
By the late 1970s, the WWII generation of rating specialists were retiring and being replaced by Vietnam-era veterans. We all knew that the former practice was not permitted by VA regulation, so we did not do that. Your article indicates that 79 percent of new IU ratings go to veterans over age 60. So it sounds like that long-ago discredited policy has resurfaced.
When I left the VA in 1988 the Court of Veteran’s Appeals was just being organized. Friends who continued to work at the VA said the court imposed huge procedural burdens on the rating process. Cases that were clear-cut and required only a short rating narrative to support findings became pages long to comply with court requirements. Case after case was remanded for further paperwork. The court’s effect on the rating process should be studied.
Congress gets involved periodically too and enacts “VA Medicine.” That means making causal connections between medical conditions that are not supported by science but favored by veterans’ groups.
The VA employees I knew were competent and hardworking. The problem is a rating schedule that has not been scrutinized for half a century, "medicine" influenced by powerful political forces and a legal review system that dramatically burdens the whole process.
ROBERT CARPENTER
Bremerton, Wash.
The GAO recommendation that VA tighten its oversight of the IU rating is long overdue.
While working as a Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Officer, I complained about IU decisions for several years. In extreme cases, veterans said they had been prompted by their service officers to make these claims and to abandon jobs and rehabilitation programs to support their claims.
This occurred following a determination by the vocational rehabilitation staff that the veteran is "employable" and that the opportunity for rehabilitation to a suitable job is feasible.
While working as a Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Officer, I complained about IU decisions for several years. In extreme cases, veterans said they had been prompted by their service officers to make these claims and to abandon jobs and rehabilitation programs to support their claims.
This occurred following a determination by the vocational rehabilitation staff that the veteran is "employable" and that the opportunity for rehabilitation to a suitable job is feasible.
M. FARMER
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
1
Popular Days
Jun 26
4
Top Posters For This Question
Old 5311 2 posts
john999 1 post
Popular Days
Jun 26 2006
4 posts
3 answers to this question
Recommended Posts