SMC for additional 50 & 100 percent evaluation under 38 cfr 3.50(f)(3) & (f)(4)

[Lonniebrinson]

SMC for additional rating. Can both 38 cfr 3.50(f)(3) and 38 cfr 3.50(f)(4) be applied if I have two different rating. Example : I was granted SMC-P1 which equal to SMC-L 1/2 on 04/16/2020. On 11/27/2020 I was granted SMC-P2 which equal to SMC-M. My question should I be SMC-P2 which should equal to SMC-M 1/2 ?

[Dustoff1970]

If you have not done so already I would find a very experienced and motivated paid VSO at a VA Regional Office or VA hospital to assist you with this involved situation and medical - rating issue.  Maybe another vet with identical ratings can answer your question on the Hadit forum. Good luck.

[Richard1954]

8 hours ago, Lonniebrinson said:

SMC for additional rating. Can both 38 cfr 3.50(f)(3) and 38 cfr 3.50(f)(4) be applied if I have two different rating. Example : I was granted SMC-P1 which equal to SMC-L 1/2 on 04/16/2020. On 11/27/2020 I was granted SMC-P2 which equal to SMC-M. My question should I be SMC-P2 which should equal to SMC-M 1/2 ?

NOI both cannnot be applied its one or the other. If you only have an additional 50%  or higher rating  you get L 1/2 

If you have an additional  100% rating over the original 100% rating you will be bumped to M  not  to m 1/2

Basically your saying you were initially smc L 1/2 or P, Now you were granted SMC M or P2, thats it that is how it works

In my opinion, the rule is easy to understand.  If you have not read the rules, take a look, if your confused the fact is 100% in additon to a 100% rating gets you M.

BY the way the second 100% cannot be a combined 100% it has to be a standalone rating.

I  have been trying to gewt to M for years almost thought I had made it when I was awarded a temporary 100% for 5 months, but no has to be a permanent rating.

I have a single 100% rating and a combined 100% rating,  I have had L 1/2 or P1 for years.... 

Actually if you read it carefully you get the impression that you would get a bump for every 50% or better that you have I have 3 60% ratings thinking I should be at M 1/2 but nope... they only count the first 50% or the first 100% for th bump to L 1/2 or M respectfully.

 

[Lonniebrinson]

9 minutes ago, Richard1954 said:

NOI both cannnot be applied its one or the other. If you only have an additional 50%  or higher rating  you get L 1/2 

If you have an additional  100% rating over the original 100% rating you will be bumped to M  not  to m 1/2

Basically your saying you were initially smc L 1/2 or P, Now you were granted SMC M or P2, thats it that is how it works

In my opinion, the rule is easy to understand.  If you have not read the rules, take a look, if your confused the fact is 100% in additon to a 100% rating gets you M.

BY the way the second 100% cannot be a combined 100% it has to be a standalone rating.

I  have been trying to gewt to M for years almost thought I had made it when I was awarded a temporary 100% for 5 months, but no has to be a permanent rating.

I have a single 100% rating and a combined 100% rating,  I have had L 1/2 or P1 for years.... 

Actually if you read it carefully you get the impression that you would get a bump for every 50% or better that you have I have 3 60% ratings thinking I should be at M 1/2 but nope... they only count the first 50% or the first 100% for th bump to L 1/2 or M respectfully.

 

But according to 38 u.s.c 1114 it states " or if already entitled to an intermediate rate to the next higher intermediate rate". The sound like a 2nd bump up from L1/2 to M1/2.

[Richard1954]

2 hours ago, Lonniebrinson said:

But according to 38 u.s.c 1114 it states " or if already entitled to an intermediate rate to the next higher intermediate rate". The sound like a 2nd bump up from L1/2 to M1/2.

No you are misunderstanding what it means.  You will only get a bump to M with an extra 100%

 

[broncovet]

I agree with Richard.  While I can appreciate LonnieBrinson's interpretation, unfortunately, because of Chevron Deference, VA gets to interpret its own regulations as they see fit.  

I have seen this on other issues plenty.  

The old way of (VA interpretation) of this, explained by Richard, may be ripe for a change, however.  

To accomplish that (needed change) in interpretation, it would most likely involve a great law firm taking this issue, such as CCK law, or Carpenter Chartered.  

I would encourage LonnieBrinson to follow that needed change path, through a law firm.

Thats how Veterans get "favorable regulation overhauls"...