Question on ratings table

[relatively happy camper]

If a claimant already 100% schedular for a single disability/condition, why is the VA allowed to use the combined ratings table to get to the 60% needed to get an SMC(s) award??  From what I've seen in cases I've read, at the BVA & CAVC, the VA never lets it get that far.  The way I see it is that claimant is already rated 100% and shouldn't have use the combined table.  Once you are 100% the next ratings should be just added to total the 60% but that's not what the VA does.  If anyone can explain it to me, I'd appreciate it.

[MrPain7]

  30+20+10 equals 50% in veterans ratings.....

[MrPain7]

  30+20+10 equals 50% in veterans ratings.....

[Lemuel]

3 hours ago, relatively happy camper said:

Maybe my question wasn't clear?  My point was that the combined ratings table shouldn't be used because they are penalizing the claimant who is already 100% rated, by using the table again.  They've already used it once.  If you are 100% you have basically a zero worth, so how can they use it again.  I understand how they get there on the way to 100%.  But using it a second time is wrong.  I was pursuing that line on my appeals thru the BVA and CAVC, but before that issue was even discussed the court remanded it back to the BVA where they award me the SMC (s) HB, based on evidence in my original claim in '89.  I'd kinda hoped I could that decided but didn't.  30+20+10 should equal 60!  Period.  Any of the cases I've read they've always used the combined ratings table and never discussed why.  Sorry, it just irks me!

I get your last.  Problem is the "law is the law" no matter how unfair it appears.  We have to change that through voting and our representatives in the House and Senate.  It irks me too, but their reasoning is that you can only be 100% (until you go over 100%, which was not taken into account when the rating chart was designed to never give a combined rating of more than 100% and make it damn hard to get there) and then it would be unfair to change the way you calculate.  The unfairness probably brought about the SMC because it is obvious being unable to find gainful employment is not the worst you can be from your injuries.

Blame the military industrial complex for lobbying to get less for personnel and more for arms.  Lobbyists brought about what we thought we wanted, community care.  But the contractors that implement it make us worse off mostly than we were when there was just the VA though if might be miles from home.

Health Net engineered the Phoenix, Cheyenne VA crisis of 2012.  They changed a non profit to a for profit so they could pay their executives high salaries, the top five accounting for $25,000,000.00 while the top gun took down $12,500,000.00 per year.

Follow the money to see where your benefits come up short.  Health net did not pay their providers fully and bailed after only a few years.  Where did the extra money go?

[broncovet]

Its the same reason VA (loans) can charge Veteran interest on the loan, but not PAY interest to the Veteran when they delay his claim 5, 10, 20, or even 30 years:  The VA gets to interpret their own regulations because of Chevron Deference aka Auer Defence.   Many times, cases boil down to "how VA interprets" their regulations.  

The VA is free to interpret their own regulations in a manner they see fit, and to modify, scrap, or change those regulations, at will, for their own purposes, when it serves their best interests.  Further, it seems to be that for Veteran "Joe" the Va can interpret its regulations in xyz manner, but for Veteran "Bob", the VA can decide this is a different situtation and they are to be interpreted in abc manner.  And, unfortunately, VA has apparently interpreted the regulations requiring those above it to be 100 percent plus a combined 60 percent, seperate and distinct, not an "added" 60 percent.    In the ground breaking case of Chevron, the Supreme Court ruled that (a government agency) was in a postition to interpret its own regulations, and "the bar for us to get that overturned" is very very high.  The good news is that Chevron deference is being reconsidered by SCOTUS, and it could be changed, or eliminated:

https://www.duanemorris.com/alerts/us_supreme_court_signals_it_may_jettison_chevron_doctrine_0124.html#:~:text=The conservative majority of the,federal agencies less interpretive discretion.

I suggest you watch this Scotus decision, I will try also, and let you know if the results when I find them.  

 

Edited February 4 by broncovet