Discrepancy Between Compensation Check, Decision Letter, E-Benefits

[BC83]

So, after doing some digging on this site and others, while not coming up with much (especially since the changes to the E-Benefits site), I figure I would make a post. Please let me know if that was the wrong choice. I'm in a peculiar situation as follows:

I received a Decision Packet dated 27 April resolving three injury claims A, B, C, rated at 10%, 10%, and 0% respectively - 20% total disability; with a retroactive payment start date of 1 December 2013. I prepared to generate a NOD.

I then received a letter dated 28 April stating that my claim was still under review. Both this letter and the packet arrived on 29 April.

I checked E-benefits on 30 April and checked the disability tab which displayed claims A, B, C, at 10%, 10% and 40%, respectively - which would be accurate for the type of injury sustained (severe muscular), and a total disability rate of 50%.

My letter of Benefit Verification displays a compensation amount equal to the 50% rate, with effective and payment dates identical to the Decision Packet (1 December 2013).

Today I received 2 checks in the mail: one for retroactive payment at the 20% rate, and one for the month of May also at the 20% rate. (Why I am being mailed checks when my bank account information is on the site is also somewhat of an issue...)

While I give credit to the speed at which my claim was handled - its accuracy is lacking. I can see why this process drives people up a wall...

So... any one else experience this? Any advice on how to proceed? Everything digital on E-Benefits says I'm at 50% total (which is what I would expect), but everything I have in my hands is 20%. I'm in a weird place where a NOD seems unnecessary, but... what is the right course of action or a capable (culpable?) point of contact?

[jbasser]

You will receive the new decision letter and you should be paid June 1.

J

[BC83]

A new decision packet arrived yesterday, and the amount remaining from my retroactive payment was deposited as well. Come June 1 I can be certain that everything is in order.

After looking at the two decision packets, a lot (read as: all) of this confusion could have been avoided by simply not listing the unfinished claim in the first packet - they didn't list irrelevant claims on the second packet (only the claim in question), so why do it at all? At least the folks on the other end of the 800 number seemed to have dealt with this situation before and were able to answer my questions quickly and effectively without breaking any rules.

Though, all things considered, what fun is a stress-free environment anyway?

Again, thanks for all the responses, it is much appreciated.