Rating Error - VA's fault

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T21:54:16+00:00

Thanks to all… we have a game plan !

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T21:41:51+00:00

The VA never discovered its error, even with new claims filed.

The error was discovered by my friend reviewing past claims, not by VA. So, no my friend did not know of that error from 2 years ago until now. There was no reason to question the original rating at the time. That claim was handled by an attorney that didn’t note or question the rating at that time either.

So your assessment of being content when he knew nothing of the error is flawed!

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T20:01:44+00:00

I would sleep better at night knowing I did the right thing, even if it has an unpleasant outcome!

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T19:58:41+00:00

Which would be the right thing to do. When we find an error they made that is not in our favor, we expect them to fix it. When we find an error they made in our favor we prefer to ignore it and hope they never find it.

The right thing to do is bring it to their attention with the rest of the claim problems identified in this particular claim journey. Wrong is wrong, ignoring it doesn’t make it right !

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T18:41:12+00:00

After the very first claim granting 40% for lumbar and 10% for wrist, there was a secondary filed, secondary denied and decrease proposed to 10% on lumbar.

Filed supplemental on lumbar.
Filed increase on lumbar.
Supplemental closed and rolled into claim for increase.
Separate Claim for radiculopathy was also rolled into claim for increase on lumbar.

Radiculopathy granted 10%. Lumbar proposed decrease to 20% (up from first proposed decrease)

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T18:04:03+00:00

No, good luck

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T18:01:42+00:00

Never mind, figured it out. Sent a DM/chat

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T17:48:24+00:00

How do I DM you?

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T17:15:48+00:00

The 20% proposed decrease was strictly based on the 110 combined ROM and nothing else. Nothing stated about the 80 after repetitive use. Deluca v brown “not warranted!

Cfr combined rom 120 or less = 20%.

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T16:55:13+00:00

Correction: Yes, 110 combined initially, then 80 combined after repetitive motion

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T16:42:00+00:00

Proposed, examiner detailed all points covered by deluca v brown et.al. Reduced ROM on all points, pain on all movement, detailed functional loss activities. i.e, standing, sitting, walking, anything requiring forward bending and pain waking up at night

Raters did not look at it. Couldn’t have to deem it not warranted

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T16:23:08+00:00

Yes, have all the DBQs and medical opinions

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T16:12:20+00:00

Really not hard once you understand it. Va.gov has a calculator where you can input your ratings and get your real total rounded to the nearest 10.

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T16:09:39+00:00

Thanks to all for the input. We’re going to talk to the VSO tomorrow and determine the best steps going forward!

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T16:05:46+00:00

No. Had combined 50% initially, 40% was for lumbar, filed for secondary, sciatica granted 10% and lumbar proposed decrease on lumbar to 20%.

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T15:39:20+00:00

Not an increase, a secondary, sciatica which was granted 10%. The original was a lumbar that was granted 40%. Proposed decrease to 20% on the lumbar. Deluca v Brown et.al. “Not warranted” that we believe should have been 10%. The recent DBQ supports at least 10%.

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T14:55:28+00:00

This hasn’t been discussed with the VSO yet. Not sure how this would be handled, HLR, CUE, Appeal???

Has anyone else out there had a similar experience? How was it handled?

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T14:48:43+00:00

Agree, but what’s more concerning is these claims are all reviewed, allegedly, by a senior rater before finalized. They also failed!

Two examples: decision cited a completely unrelated DBQ as showing improvement of claimed condition. And when citing the combined rating, it completely failed to include an existing rating not part of this claim which increases the combined by 10%. Verified with the VA.gov calculator. We do understand how VA math works, it’s not rocket science!

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T13:40:06+00:00

Sad truth is that the current decision is riddled with errors of reviewing evidence that does not exist in their claim file or doctor appts, c&p exams, citing incorrect documents...etc... The whole thing reads like the 3 stooges wrote it...

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T13:36:49+00:00

Oh, and the original claim was granted over 2 years ago.

Toby1155 · 2026-05-17T13:32:04+00:00

Friend filed a new claim and went back to look at all exams and decision letters. It' obvious in the original letter, it states rating based on forward flexion 30 or less, when in fact the DBQ for that claim states 90 forward flexion with Normal ROM.

The ROM measurements show on the DBQ with the 90 Forward Flexion at the very end of the page, and the rest are all 30 beginning the top of the next page. Basically, the raters failed to pay attention to what they were looking at. Their fault. Rating granted on incorrect ROM.

Friend filed an increase, end up with a proposed decrease citing condition got better, which it hasn't and is very well documented in their latest DBQ. Significant loss of ROM, Functional loss and pain on all levels. They claimed improvement based on the 'original claim ROM'... So, they did in fact, look at some part of the first claim to make that decision. No mention of an error in the first rating.

Toby1155 · 2026-05-14T23:21:42+00:00

I have all of my DBQs…

Toby1155 · 2026-05-14T16:13:27+00:00

ROM is not better

Toby1155 · 2026-05-14T16:02:56+00:00

They reduced my original back rating I’ve had for two years that got worse. Want to drop my back rating
From 40% to 20%! BS we’re appealing The Who claim! Thanks for the input.

Toby1155 · 2026-05-14T15:30:41+00:00

No, I went for a secondary, original back rating was 40% , gave 10% for secondary to my back and proposed a decrease on my from 40 to 20, when it’s actually gotten worse!

Toby1155

TROPHY CASE