I applied three of the conditions under the Gulf War Illness umbrella back in August of 2010. All the appointments were completed about two months ago.

I just got my award letter and while it's a big win in itself I'm confused by the "IRS math" that they used to compute the final percentage so I thought I'd ask the HadIt community for their take.

I started with a 60% (50% for PTSD and 10% for some minor things). The decision for the GWI is as follows:

- 30% for IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome)

- 20% for FM (Fibromyalgia)

- 10% for CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome)

Getting recognized for the GWI is a win. Getting IBS as a separate rating is also a win.

Here's where the "IRS math" comes in:

60% + 30% + 20% + 10% = 80% combined rating.

Apparently the VBA did not use a linear scale in determining a combined rating. Is this common? Any speculation on chances of getting this corrected? (I expect I should have little trouble getting the FM increased to 40%, and likely getting the CFS to 20% or even 40%.)

Thanks in advance for all answers.

BFR

("IRS Math" is a term I once read in a Dave Barry story.)

**Podcast Live and Archive Shows Available Here**

*HadIt.com Fund Raising Campaign*

HadIt.com has grown to over 100.000 visitors a month and over 12,000 registered forum members.

**HadIt.com IS NOT A NON-PROFIT, contributions are NOT tax deductible.**

# Gulf War Claim Results = Irs Math?

Started by
BFR
, Apr 22 2012 05:19 PM

5 replies to this topic

### #1

Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:19 PM

### #2

Posted 23 April 2012 - 01:31 AM

Your math should be 50% + 30% + 20% + 10% + 10%

### #3

Posted 23 April 2012 - 05:42 AM

BFR - the VA uses the combined ratings table (CRT) see 38 CFR 4.25. The table uses the "whole" person theory, so that once you deduct the first disability, you are no longer a "whole" person. In your case 50% for PTSD leaves you 50% whole. Now you deduct 30% of that remaining 50%, which would be 15%, which is added to the original 50% for a 65% total disability. Then they take 20% of that remaining "whole" person of 35%, which is 7%, added to 65% and becomes 72%, etc, etc, etc. You can find a link to the table on Hadit's home page or go to 38 CFR 4.25. It kinda makes sense, once you understand it. jmo

pr

pr

### #4

Posted 23 April 2012 - 08:37 AM

GREAT News BFR

"I expect I should have little trouble getting the FM increased to 40%, and likely getting the CFS to 20% or even 40%.")

If this would take an IMO,now is the time to consider using some of that retro top pay for it.

However, are you still wporking?

If Not what did the VA say regarding TDIU? Did they enclose the TDIU form?

It ,might be easier to succeed at this point on a TDIU claim (and m,aybe a better way to spend any IMO money if needed) that to ask for increases at this point.

Then again if you are not working ,I would do both, if I were you.

"I expect I should have little trouble getting the FM increased to 40%, and likely getting the CFS to 20% or even 40%.")

If this would take an IMO,now is the time to consider using some of that retro top pay for it.

However, are you still wporking?

If Not what did the VA say regarding TDIU? Did they enclose the TDIU form?

It ,might be easier to succeed at this point on a TDIU claim (and m,aybe a better way to spend any IMO money if needed) that to ask for increases at this point.

Then again if you are not working ,I would do both, if I were you.

### #5

Posted 01 May 2012 - 08:21 AM

I started this case with documentation from an IMO who is board certified in Internal medicine as well as Endocrinology. I have her guidelines that I received from my County rep that gave the specific phrases as well as printouts of sections of the eCFR for to use as a guide. She created a lengthy document that seemed like it should have outweighed the VA doctor, but I guess it's common for the VA to open low and hope you give up.

Thanks for posting the "whole person" theory. I'd heard about that a long time ago but had forgotten. So to see if I have it right the following table should apply:

(remember the numbers are 50, 30, 20, 10. 10.)

Start at 100% Subtract 50%, so 50% of a person left. ................................................................ 50% = rating

subtract 30% of 50% = 15, so the rating is now 50 + 15 = 65%, with 35% of a person left..............+15% = 65

subtract 20% of 35% = 7, so now the rating is 35-7= 28 (rounded to 30%)....................................+ 7% = 80

subtract 10% from 30% = 3 .............................................................................................................+ 3% = 83, but that gets rounded back down to 80%.

Yes, it does make sense in an odd way. Thanks all for explaining this to me.

[Note: I thought I'd posted this a few days back but apparently I forgot to hit "Add Reply." Sorry about that!]

.

Thanks for posting the "whole person" theory. I'd heard about that a long time ago but had forgotten. So to see if I have it right the following table should apply:

(remember the numbers are 50, 30, 20, 10. 10.)

Start at 100% Subtract 50%, so 50% of a person left. ................................................................ 50% = rating

subtract 30% of 50% = 15, so the rating is now 50 + 15 = 65%, with 35% of a person left..............+15% = 65

subtract 20% of 35% = 7, so now the rating is 35-7= 28 (rounded to 30%)....................................+ 7% = 80

subtract 10% from 30% = 3 .............................................................................................................+ 3% = 83, but that gets rounded back down to 80%.

Yes, it does make sense in an odd way. Thanks all for explaining this to me.

[Note: I thought I'd posted this a few days back but apparently I forgot to hit "Add Reply." Sorry about that!]

.

### #6

Posted 01 May 2012 - 08:48 AM

You basically have it but you don't round, up or down, until after the final combined percentage. Your numbers should be 50% to 65% to 72% to 75%, w/75% rounded up to 80%. If there is a second 10% it would be 50,65,72,75,78 rounded to 80%. Hope this helps.

pr

pr