Yuku free message boards

etihwr2 wrote:

---

If your on your meds, you don't have total social impairment.

That would depend on the facts in each individual situation. There is a lot more grey area in "total social impairment" than there is in "total occupational impairment". At one time we did not assign IU to persons with only a mental disorder. Instead we simply assigned a 100 percent evaluation. The General Counsel said that while occupational impairment is easy to determine (you can either work or you can't), the determination of social impairment was much more subjective. For this reason the GC held that if someone with only a service connected mental disorder could not work then the issue of degree of social impairment would determine whether a single 100 percent or a 70 percent with IU would be assigned. The idea that a single 100 percent could be assigned for a mental disorder in the case of someone who was able to work was dismissed out of hand since it clearly violated the Rating Schedule.

Having done about 4,000 claims.

So you're still a rookie huh? Just kidding, but keep in mind that to someone who has been doing this for over 33 years that doesn't sound like a lot of cases at all. When I became a Rating Specialist back in the 80's we were required to write 10 decisions a day just to meet our minimum production quotas. Thank goodness that was lowered years later; but as you can see, just working the minimum one would decide over 4,000 cases in less than two years. Again, just kidding and welcome to the forum.

In your oppinion as a former DRO, you wouldn't rule in such a way. That we agree, but the next person - who knows.

I agree, but there are some things that aren't subjective and granting a schedular 100 percent evaluation to someone who is capable of being employed is one of those areas. And if there is a mental health worker who is a GS12 and is getting 100 percent solely for PTSD something is clearly wrong. That is outrageous and should be reported. I'm sure the VA Inspector General would like to know exactly how this came about because clearly either the facts aren't known or someone's head should roll. As a taxpayer I would like to know also.

If you wish to inquire more about me, email me and I'll send you my former bosses phone #. Oh, he's a DRO too!

Perhaps your boss was one of my pupils. I was in the first group of DROs when this then experimental program was established in 1997 after having worked previously as a Hearing Officer. Later I taught the DRO indoctrination classes at the training academy in Baltimore for newer DROs after the program was made official in 1999 or so. Maybe he was in one of my classes.

In all seriousness, one should not approach claims processing in the hope that someone at VA will screw up and do something that is not consistent with either the spirit or intent of the laws and regulations. Like you I have seen my share of screwball decisions that defy logic. Usually these type things get noticed and corrected somewhere down the road, often after a veteran gets greedy and tries to get even more. This is especially true in todays climate where there are so many young, inexperienced decision makers at VA. But having said that, we still shouldn't approach this on the basis of anecdotal evidence based on decisions made in someone else's claim, especially if that decision seems to defy logic.

Cruiser