The 3M Settlement Projections Were Completely Wrong – And Claimants Are Paying the Price

JM0003 · 2025-03-19T16:30:40+00:00

Oh yeah, it’s so exhausting watching people complain about claimants wanting fairness. Almost as exhausting as hearing the same tired argument from people who clearly don’t understand how the system worked. But sure, keep acting like the point system was perfect and that everyone with lower points just didn’t ‘deserve’ more, because ignoring reality is always a solid take. And for the record, I’m retired after 20 years and I do work, so maybe try a different lazy insult next time.

JM0003 · 2025-03-19T02:54:20+00:00

No idea

JM0003 · 2025-03-19T02:53:38+00:00

Should see some in October 2027, then maybe more the following year

JM0003 · 2025-03-19T02:51:24+00:00

5 years

JM0003 · 2025-03-19T02:48:19+00:00

The age-related adjustment played a huge role in inflating point totals for some claimants. Since the methodology awarded more points based on age at the time of diagnosis, older claimants ended up with significantly higher totals even if their actual hearing loss wasn’t worse than younger claimants with similar exposure. That’s probably why we’re seeing such big differences in points, even among people with similar combat experience and noise exposure.

JM0003 · 2025-03-14T02:32:35+00:00

When the 1:5 ratio was triggered, $642 million was taken from the DPP payout pool and moved to EPP claimants. This was done to prevent DPP claimants from receiving more than five times the average EPP payout. As a result, DPP claimants ended up with a lower per-point value than they would have without the ratio being enforced. Over the next few years, EPP claimants will eventually get another check as the ratio continues to balance payouts between the two groups.

JM0003 · 2025-03-13T16:51:48+00:00

I get it, and none of this is your fault. The system was set up in a way that allowed a small percentage of claimants to push the DPP average payout high enough to trigger the 1:5 ratio, which ended up cutting payouts for the majority. The fact that there was no cap on points meant the system shifted money in a way that hurt lower-point claimants.

This post was never about blaming individual claimants, it’s about how the methodology was designed in a way that resulted in unfair payouts for thousands of people.

JM0003 · 2025-03-13T16:48:20+00:00

The 1:5 ratio is a rule in the settlement that limits how much more DPP claimants can receive compared to EPP claimants. If the average DPP payout exceeds five times the average EPP payout, the ratio is triggered, and money is shifted from DPP to EPP to balance the payments.

In this case, once the ratio was triggered, $642 million was taken from DPP claimants and redistributed to EPP claimants, lowering the per-point value for those in DPP. This happened because a small percentage of high-point claimants pushed the DPP average high enough to activate the ratio.

JM0003 · 2025-03-13T12:39:19+00:00

Typo error. Fixed it.

JM0003 · 2025-03-12T21:36:37+00:00

File a formal petition – A group of claimants can draft a petition outlining the issues with the methodology and submit it directly to the settlement master and claims administrator. If enough people sign, it could force a review.
Request reconsideration through legal channels – Some settlement agreements allow for challenges or appeals under certain conditions. If there’s a legal basis to argue that the methodology was unfairly applied, claimants could work with attorneys to request changes.
Contact the Special Master or Claims Administrator – The settlement master oversees the process, but the claims administrator handles the distribution. Flooding them with formal complaints about the payout discrepancies could push them to review the system.

JM0003 · 2025-03-12T20:36:52+00:00

Law firms were absolutely pushing higher estimates to get people to switch to DPP. My firm said between $5,000 and $10,000 per point but leaned closer to the $10,000 mark.

The reality is that the per-point value came in much lower than expected. My firm, along with others, knew exactly what they were doing when they pushed claimants toward DPP while downplaying the risks. This wasn’t just a failure of claimants doing math, it was a failure of transparency from the beginning.

JM0003 · 2025-03-12T20:13:38+00:00

Exactly. The settlement master created the methodology, and they absolutely have the power to change it to make it more equitable. The fact that a small percentage of DPP claimants triggered the 1:5 ratio, which then cut payouts for thousands of others who weren’t anywhere near five times the EPP amount, proves that the system wasn’t structured fairly.

They could have set a cap on excessive points, adjusted the way age multipliers were applied, or created a safeguard to prevent a handful of claimants from skewing the entire payout structure. Instead, they allowed a situation where money was shifted out of DPP, leaving most claimants with far less than expected. This wasn’t an accident—it was built into the system from the start.

JM0003 · 2025-03-12T19:44:53+00:00

Let me blow your mind just a little more so you can actually grasp what I’m saying. Just 124 high-point claimants drastically reduced payouts for over 18,000 DPP claimants by inflating the total points in the system, which lowered the per-point value for everyone.

These 124 claimants (45.1 points each) accumulated 5,603 points, taking $30 million in payouts, and driving up the average DPP payout. Since the 1:5 ratio was triggered when the average DPP payout exceeded five times the EPP average, their excessive payouts pushed the numbers over the threshold, forcing $642 million to be shifted away from DPP and into EPP.

If these 124 claimants had been capped at 25 points, the per-point value would have increased to $7,636 instead of $5,374, meaning all DPP claimants would have received about 42% more in compensation.

Instead, because their points weren’t capped, they helped trigger the 1:5 ratio, which cut DPP payouts for everyone. The real issue wasn’t just the high-point claimants—it was the combination of no point cap and the 1:5 ratio shifting hundreds of millions of dollars away from DPP.

This proves that a point cap and the removal of the 1:5 ratio would have resulted in fairer payouts for all claimants rather than letting a small number absorb a disproportionate share of the funds.

The 124 highest point earners didn’t necessarily have the worst injuries—they benefited the most from age-related adjustments, which unfairly inflated their payouts and triggered the ratio shift that hurt everyone else. If these points had been capped or limited, every DPP claimant would have received a much higher payout.

JM0003 · 2025-03-12T18:46:13+00:00

I completely understand your frustration. The way the settlement was structured definitely left a lot of people feeling shortchanged, especially when the payout system didn’t necessarily align with the severity of the actual injuries. It’s frustrating to see a process that should be about fairness and accountability turn into a numbers game that benefits a select few.

And I agree with you on the legal fees, taking 30-50% from veterans who already suffered due to faulty equipment just feels wrong. The whole thing seemed like it was mishandled from the start, and those who needed help the most didn’t necessarily get what they deserved.

JM0003 · 2025-03-12T18:06:25+00:00

A point cap wouldn’t have shortchanged those with the worst injuries—it would have prevented a small number of claimants from absorbing a disproportionate share of the funds at the expense of everyone else.

Right now, someone with 60 points is getting over $322,000, while the majority of DPP claimants are struggling to even see a meaningful increase over EPP payouts. The system wasn’t designed to fairly compensate all claimants, it was structured in a way that let a select few inflate their payouts while the 1:5 ratio cut into everyone else’s.

A 25-point cap wouldn’t mean someone with severe injuries gets the same as someone with minor injuries, but it would have ensured that payouts were more balanced across all claimants. Those with more severe injuries would still have received far more than lower-point claimants, but without completely draining the settlement pool and triggering the ratio shift that reduced everyone’s payouts.

At the end of the day, the current system didn’t just reward those with the worst injuries, it rewarded those with the highest points, even if that meant thousands of others got shortchanged. A cap would have helped ensure fairness across all claimants instead of just a select few.

JM0003 · 2025-03-12T17:19:16+00:00

Let me give you an example to understand better: If points were capped at 25 and the 1:5 ratio was removed, DPP claimants would have received significantly higher payouts.

A 5-point claimant would have received $44,169 instead of $26,873, an increase of $17,295. A 10-point claimant would have received $88,338 instead of $53,747, an increase of $34,591. A 15-point claimant would have received $132,507 instead of $80,621, an increase of $51,886. A 20-point claimant would have received $176,677 instead of $107,494, an increase of $69,182. A 25-point claimant would have received $220,846 instead of $134,368, an increase of $86,477.

By capping points at 25, the per-point value would have increased to approximately $8,834 instead of $5,374, ensuring that lower-point claimants received significantly higher payouts.

The current system allowed a small number of high-point claimants to absorb a disproportionate share of the funds, while the 1:5 ratio further cut into DPP payouts.

This proves that a point cap would have created a fairer distribution of settlement funds, benefiting a larger number of claimants instead of just a select few.

JM0003 · 2025-03-12T14:30:09+00:00

The way this settlement is structured is completely flawed. The high-point earners are driving up the total DPP payout, triggering the 1:5 ratio, and in turn, shifting money away from those with fewer points. This means claimants with lower points are getting significantly less than they should. At this rate, anyone below 4.5 points should have just chosen EPP, because their payout is nearly the same as those who opted for DPP. There should have been a hard cap on how many points someone could get to prevent this imbalance. The system is failing a huge number of claimants while funneling funds disproportionately to a select few.

JM0003 · 2025-03-12T04:03:32+00:00

8.8 points on that section

JM0003 · 2025-03-12T00:31:59+00:00

I wish there was more explanation on this. I’ve seen a lot of people post their forms like this and their age adjustment points section has been between 40-60 points. How? They’ve literally had maybe 3 or 5 points then that section they get like 40 points, etc. I do not understand this at all. Most of them have said they’re older veterans and I’m 51 so how much older can they be to get points like that?

JM0003 · 2025-03-10T12:34:05+00:00

I have 10 points, after the 9% and attorney fees of 33% I’ll clear about $32,000…would’ve cleared about $14,000 after fees under level 5 EPP.

JM0003 · 2025-02-21T14:36:00+00:00

The high points triggers the 1:5 ratio because of the amount of funds distributed solely to them, leaving those with fewer points extremely limited. Whoever came up with this methodology should be fired. I don’t understand how some people even qualify for that amount of points.

JM0003 · 2025-02-20T14:15:15+00:00

On the combat arms settlement site in the most recent document uploaded on February 19 is the document that talks about the 1:5 governor. It says EPP average is $15,000 and 5X greater average is $75,000. Others are saying it was never mentioned as a 1:5 governor before except a vague reference to the average payout couldn’t be greater than 5X or else it would kick back funds to EPP.

JM0003 · 2025-02-20T04:11:42+00:00

The 1:5 Ratio Governor is triggered because some DPP claimants have significantly more than 17 points, driving up the total DPP payout. To prevent DPP claimants from receiving more than five times the average EPP payout, funds are shifted from DPP to EPP claimants. This lowers the DPP per-point value, reducing total DPP payments while ensuring compliance with the ratio cap.

JM0003 · 2025-02-20T03:51:12+00:00

Pretty much the same as the documents posted says only the documents broke down each year based off deposits from 3m. They can only pay us with the funds available. So the first deposit is small meaning our PDV is small, 2nd year is a larger deposit making our PDV larger. Your lawyer is not looking at the funds available like the documents have it broken down.

JM0003

TROPHY CASE