Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-10-21

AuC IopOIt, bIleTolOTo, CON6TS hll Cd56b
numbering below III 900 re.rated during
the months of December, 1888, and jan
uary, February, March, April, May June
and July, 1889.
A statement showing the total number
specified, and also showing that in
about SO per cent. of the total number
of cases re-rated, the re-rating extends
back to the date of discharge, is given,
and the comment is made that the state
ment indicates that there has been
substantial increase in the number of
cases re-rated from month to month dur
ing this period, which, the report says,
is indicative of what is apparently the
established policy of the bureau, the re-
suit of which, if continued, will be to re-
adjudicate and re-rate very large num-
ber of cases on the admitted files.
The report continues: "The mode of
procedure in the majority of cases is
about as follows: Pensioners, prompted
by the liberal policy of the bureau, in
making application for an increase OF
pension, also, in the same application,
request re rating, giving no specific rea-
son therefor, but stating generally that
they had been rated too low; or this
question is considered on an application
for an increase alone. and in very many
cases it is considered and action taken
without, so far as the record shows, a
request having been made for such action
on the part of the pensioner.
"In the process of adjudication the
Board Of Review has adopted the follow
ing form of endorsement, which is gen.
orally found upon the briefs as it's action
Re-rating not approved unless manifest
injustice has been done in former rating
After an action is thus endorsed the case
then passes to the medical division, where
new rate is endorsed on the face of the
brief without, in most cases, assigning
any reason why the former rating
should be disturbed. The theory
or rule which the Office claims to follow
in the adjustment of cases for re.rating,
is that OF manifest injustice in the
original or former rating, but an inspec-
tion OF the accompanying exhibits will,
We think, convince you, as an exsmina-
ton OF the papers necessary in the
preparation of the same has convinced
us, that the theory or principle above
mentioned has not been followed as
rule"
Though the action on the face of the
briefs by the medical division, where
the responsibility seems to have been
placed, assigns, as rule, no reason for
re-rating as made, that is, does not set
forth that manifest injustice has been
done or mistake or palpable error COM
mitted in the former ratings, it seems
manifest that whatever the reason was
theoretically, that practically, and in
fact, that action in large majority of
cases was the result of mere
difference of opinion from that
which governed the original or former
adjudication. 1t WAS the opinion today
overturning that of ten or twenty years
ago on the weight of evidence, and in
many cases on evidence which properly
considered and weighed would, under
the existing law, rules and regulai ions
be found inadequate were the cases now
properly open for adjudication on the
weight of evidence"
The cases which are analyzed and cited
in the report are in all important particu-
lars substantially of the same general
character as those cited in Secretary No.
ble's letter to Commissioner Tanner.
dated July oath last, and published yes.
terday morning. The report CON
tinues: Zone thing seems man.
ifest: The rule, a palpable or man.
ifest error in former adiudications,
has not been in any sense applicable to
the deliberate Official judgment that has
been as q matter of fact the controlling
principle in the majority of re.rated
cases, however much it may be urged to
the contrary. The adjudications in most
cases have been based on a mere differ
ence of opinion, and judgment has been
made as rule without even the reasons
for those differences Of opinion appear.
ing"
A number of cases are Quoted az
shown to have been endorsed by either
the Commissioner or his former Secre-
tary. Geo. B. Squires. They are known
as the "forty-eight' cases, that is, they
are cases in which an order was made |
requiring their final adjudication within |
forty-eight hours from the issuance
of the order. This, the report saws, |
seems to have been understood not only |
to be an order for final action within |
forty eight hours, but an order for final |
favorable action. The board is unable |
to state where the practice of issuing
such orders originated, but it has, they |
say, an existence covering the entire
period of investigation.
In regard to the cases of the Pension
Office employees, the report says that in
their adjudication for re-rating, the rule,
"a palpable error or manifest Injustice in /
the former rating" seems to have been
utterly ignored, and they were, almost
without exception, readjusted upon
mere opinion.
The board in summarizing it's conclu.
sions says: Substantially the same
principles or rules have been followed
in general, so far as the application of
any principle or rule can be discovered,
during the period of the eight months
beginning with December, 1888, covered
by our investigation. The practice of
re rating pensions in cases, the papers
in which do not disclose an error in the
original adjudication, which is manifest
Or palpable, thus leaving the basis for re-
rating mere opinion of weight of evi.
teDce as now viewed, and allowing that
opinion to annul and change former
adjudication based upon the same evi.
1ence, is violation of the spirit, if not
he letter of the law. If this were not
10, it is not consistent with good practice
md contrary to well established rules of
evidence.
1.-THE practice of taking cases out of
heir order and making them "forty-
,ight hour" cases Ia specially mis-
'hievous, in that it is apt to be construed
ls equivalent Of any one to be allowed,
md because 1t may, for want of sufficient
ima nravant the da1iheratA and nropar