Posted on Oct 19, 2016
Compensation 101: How did I get this rating?
3.83K
16
8
8
8
0
Published on Oct 13, 2015
VA uses the Combined Ratings Table to determine a Veteran’s disability rating. VA makes this determination about the severity of a disability based on the evidence submitted as part of a claim, or that VA obtains from military records. VA rates disability from 0% to 100% in 10% increments (e.g. 10%, 20%, 30% etc.). See the Combined Ratings section below for information about how VA calculates disability percentage for disabilities here by visiting http://www.benefits.va.gov/COMPENSATI....
Category
News & Politics
License
Standard YouTube License
VA uses the Combined Ratings Table to determine a Veteran’s disability rating. VA makes this determination about the severity of a disability based on the evidence submitted as part of a claim, or that VA obtains from military records. VA rates disability from 0% to 100% in 10% increments (e.g. 10%, 20%, 30% etc.). See the Combined Ratings section below for information about how VA calculates disability percentage for disabilities here by visiting http://www.benefits.va.gov/COMPENSATI....
Category
News & Politics
License
Standard YouTube License
Disability
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Disabled Veterans
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
Thanks for letting us know SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL and providing a primer on VA disability compensation 101.
For some reason when I saw 10,20, 30 I thought of the Song from the 1960's about Snoopy versus the Red Barron which had a line "10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or more the Bloody Red Barron..."
For some reason when I saw 10,20, 30 I thought of the Song from the 1960's about Snoopy versus the Red Barron which had a line "10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or more the Bloody Red Barron..."
(3)
(0)
Sgt Douglas Berger
The courts do not rule on the accuracy of method(s) used by the Veterans Administration. They rule only on whether or not the methods were properly applied in the singular case. There is a huge discrepancy.
This calculation is in agreement with the Professor of Actuary Science and said: "If the loss of one eye is deemed to be 50% disability, and then the loss of the second eye is considered 25% disability, that is illogical. The loss of the second eye is actually another 50% impairment. This adds to a total of 100%, not 75% as the table concludes. Most secondary disabilities are not independent of the first. It is the same human being. Each subsequent impairing wound produces a cumulative effect. It is cold-hearted to assume separation. Initially, 100 years ago, this ideology may have been acceptable, but it would not be deemed accurate today."
Update from: Actuary-in-Residence & Actuarial Program Coordinator, Oregon State University ; Department of Mathematics, My question, to him, was about independence of service connected conditions. Here is his response:
"If independence were assumed, what VA is doing would be correct. With my eye-then-another-eye example, I was demonstrating that not all second disabilities are independent of the first. The second disability should be assessed in in conjunction with the first, not independent of it. That would make the formula too complex, and that's why they assume independence - to make the whole scheme simple. I think that most secondary disabilities are not independent of the first. It's the same body: each disability has a cumulative effect. Independence should not be assumed. It may have been acceptable when conceived, but it wouldn't pass muster today."
That is the absurd formula behind the table. It is inconceivably faulty. This methodology should be abolished. The nature of warfare has changed, the nature of service related injury and disability has changed. There are other various means by which the level of disability may be determined and addressed.
This calculation is in agreement with the Professor of Actuary Science and said: "If the loss of one eye is deemed to be 50% disability, and then the loss of the second eye is considered 25% disability, that is illogical. The loss of the second eye is actually another 50% impairment. This adds to a total of 100%, not 75% as the table concludes. Most secondary disabilities are not independent of the first. It is the same human being. Each subsequent impairing wound produces a cumulative effect. It is cold-hearted to assume separation. Initially, 100 years ago, this ideology may have been acceptable, but it would not be deemed accurate today."
Update from: Actuary-in-Residence & Actuarial Program Coordinator, Oregon State University ; Department of Mathematics, My question, to him, was about independence of service connected conditions. Here is his response:
"If independence were assumed, what VA is doing would be correct. With my eye-then-another-eye example, I was demonstrating that not all second disabilities are independent of the first. The second disability should be assessed in in conjunction with the first, not independent of it. That would make the formula too complex, and that's why they assume independence - to make the whole scheme simple. I think that most secondary disabilities are not independent of the first. It's the same body: each disability has a cumulative effect. Independence should not be assumed. It may have been acceptable when conceived, but it wouldn't pass muster today."
That is the absurd formula behind the table. It is inconceivably faulty. This methodology should be abolished. The nature of warfare has changed, the nature of service related injury and disability has changed. There are other various means by which the level of disability may be determined and addressed.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL it would be nice if it were total rating as I'm at about 310% Joe!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google