bilateral factor

[rahcir]

I have rating as follows:
50% for my right hand
40% for my left hand
40% for diabetes mellitus
20% for right lower extremity
20% for left lower extremity

how does bilateral factor enter into the rating and what should it be?

[TinCanMan]

Always figure the bilaterals first
Rearranging the awards
50% for my right hand
40% for my left hand
20% for right lower extremity
20% for left lower extremity
40% for diabetes mellitus

50% combined with 40% = 70%
70% combined with 20% = 76%
76% combined with 20% = 81%
Find the bilateral factor which is .1 x 81% = 8.1%
add to 81% = 89.1%
round to nearest whole number = 89%
Now combine the remaining awards
89% combined with 40% = 93%
Round to nearest multiple of 10

Your combined rating is 90%

[1968 Tet Vet]

Are you working? Have you considered applying for Individual Unemployability (IU) ? IU isn't 100% schedular, but it is paid at the 100% compensation rate. IMPORTANT... if you are unable to work because of your disabilities. YES.

Originally Posted by rahcir

I have rating as follows:
50% for my right hand
40% for my left hand
40% for diabetes mellitus
20% for right lower extremity
20% for left lower extremity

how does bilateral factor enter into the rating and what should it be?

[TinCanMan]

Most of the following quotes are by Administrators or Moderators. "Pop" is an owner operator as is TBird. both of them have terminated your account/s.

Are all of these people lying or do they have you pegged as someone who's sole purpose is to set up a strawman for the purposes of debate. Are all these folks prosecuting a personal attack against you? We know who you are and it appears you are a problem child.

You use a variety of usernames and shifting IP addresses. Among them are 1968Army, 1968 Army VV, RVNArmy, and 1968 Nam Vet.

I have a URL to each and every one of these direct quotes and I have a lot more. At the moment I'm too lazy to enumerate each and every one.

TBird said: "1968 Nam Vet I find hardly any of your posts helpful."

Witchdoctor said: "1968 Army VV -- I see you as a person that enjoys mass debating in public forums."

Herdgrunt said: "Army, you are trying very hard to rewrite the King's English"

Pop said: "I could be wrong here but in my opinion, 1968 Army is simply here to cause trouble. He doesnt ask stuff about claims to help him but to start a discussion. Then, once the discussion starts, he tries to use and says "gotcha".

To me, that is deceitful.

We are here to help other veterans that are filing a claim. This is not our job. This is not our life. This is something we do on the side as part of a way of giving something back.

Then we get someone about once every six months that selects an admin or mod and starts to go after them in a professional or personal way.

Although these exercises in talking about these "what ifs" are sometimes interesting, they are also an example of why the VA has to waste so much time. Can you imagine if 68 Army treats the VA this way. Every time he sends something in it causes a delay. Is this the VA's fault?"

Red1600 said: "Army:

You stated your position on this issue, then asked for comments. Five people gave you various reasons for the requirement.

Now you come back and restate your position almost verbatim. What is the point of this exercise? Please tell us"

nmfxstc said: "You've convinced me, Army...they are out to get you and have a full task force assigned and dedicated to doing just that"

Pop also said: "Army,

I have the same question.

This is about 5 or 6 questions that you comment on and then ask a question.

Then you see the comments and then you comment on it again, sometimes exactly what you posted before or having another angle on it.

I guess I dont understand the exercise.

It almost seems like you are asking questions and you already know the answer to the question.

Is there something I am missing? Are we a part of a research project or being inspected by the VA or being looked into by you and some other organizations?

What we do if you are not aware is try and help veterans file a well grounded claim to the VARO the first time around so as to receive the proper rating based on their claim. We are all veterans and provide our opinions based on our experiences. Some people have experiences that are more in depth but we try to help each other.

We do so without playing games with each other or by deceiving others in what we do.

I hope that that is not what is happening here."

cranegod said: "1968 Army VV
The only thing that you provide is wasting bandwidth"

[1968 Tet Vet]

TCM: anyone following your claim advise.... will most likely not even file their just claim.... thats the kind of "expert" you are on VA claims..... and, my approach is completely different. I am pro-Vet, not pro-VA.... and, you are pro-VA. Thats the difference.

BEWARE of TCM's advise ! The truth is the truth.

[TinCanMan]

Based on observation of your behavior on this and other veteran’s websites it appears your sole purpose here is to setup a strawman for the purpose of debate and to generate conflict. I won't engage you on that level for any reason.

Your understanding of veteran’s claims issues is appallingly abysmal. You don't know and won't listen to those that do. You appear to have totally mis-managed your own claim because you simply failed to understand the process.

The owner/operators of two veteran’s forums have deleted your accounts. In one case, they were forced to do this twice when you shifted nym's and IP addresses to deceive the operator.

Anyone following your advice will place his own claim at risk.

[1968 Tet Vet]

Here's the POINT: If you don't risk something, you'll derive little benefit, if any. TCM discourages Vets; I encourage Vets. Its a BIG difference. TCM is pro-VA; I am pro-Vet.

BEWARE of TCM's advise !