HadIt.com Elder Pete53 Posted March 13, 2012 HadIt.com Elder Share Posted March 13, 2012 I see this as an "reductio ad absurdum" argument, but good luck anyway. Its the VA that is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadIt.com Elder Wings Posted March 13, 2012 HadIt.com Elder Share Posted March 13, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlie Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadIt.com Elder Philip Rogers Posted March 13, 2012 Author HadIt.com Elder Share Posted March 13, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadIt.com Elder Philip Rogers Posted March 13, 2012 Author HadIt.com Elder Share Posted March 13, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadIt.com Elder Wings Posted March 13, 2012 HadIt.com Elder Share Posted March 13, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now