The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-10-22

then pass to the medical division, where
the new rate is endorsed upon 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 adjudica-
ton of cases for re-rating is that of manifest
injustice IN the original form of rating, but
an inspection of the accompanying
exhibits will, we think, convince
you, as an examination of the papers neces-
sary in preparation of the same has con-
WINGED US, that the theory or principle
above mentioned has not been followed as
a rule, though the action on the face of the
briefs by the medical division, where the
responsibility seems to be placed, assigns
as a rule no reason for the ratings as
made; that is, does not set forth that mani
fest injustice has been done or a mistake
| or palpable error committed in the former
ratings.
| SIT seems manifest whatever the reason
was theoretically, that practically and in
| fact that action in a 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 of to-day over turning that of ten
or twenty years ago on the weight of ev;-
dence, and in many cases of evidence which
properly considered and weighed, would
under the law. rules and regulations be
AOOiO 4HdhC4udIC, WCIc buG CASES uUh
properly open for adjudication on the
weight of evidence"
In the cases which are analysed and
cited IN the report, they are in all import
| ant particulars substantially of the same
general character cited in Secretary
Mobiles letter to Commissioner Tanner
dated July p last, and published yesterday
morning.
The report continues:
Zone thing seems manifest: palpable or
manifest error in former adjudications was
not in any proper sense applicable to the
deliberate official Judgment but as matter
of fact the controlling principle in a ma
iority OF the re-rated cases. However much
may be urged to the contrary, in most cases
the re-rating has been based upon mere
difference of opinion, and judgments have
been made, as a rule, without even these
reasons for those differences.
The practice of re-rating pensions in
cases the papers in which do not disclose
error in the original adjudication which is
manifest ana palpable, thus leaving as the
real basis for re-rating mere opinion on the
weight of evidence as now viewed, and al
lowing that opinion to anrul and change
former adjudication based upon the same
evidence, is violation of the spirit if not of
the letter of the law, and even if this were
not so, is inconsistent with good practice
and contrary to the well established rules
of evidence. The practice of taking cases
out their turn and making them forty
eight-hour cases is especially mischievous
in that it is apt to be construed as the
equivalent of an order to be allowed, and
because it may for want of sufficient time
prevent that deliberate and proper con-
sideration which it should have. The de-
cisions of the department are not always
followed by pension officers as they should be
IN points of law and practice. The rule of
practice furnished by the departmental de-
cisions should be recognized and followed by
the pension Officials so long as not over
ruled or modified by the authority which
made it so, and the construction or inter
probation of a law by the department should
be accepted by an officer as binding. and
that as applicable not only to the case in
which it is made, but in all cases involving
the same legal question:
The board makes number of recommen-
dations with view to the correction of
errors which have crept into practice
through the lax methods which are found
to prevail in the pension office.