Omaha daily bee., 1889-10-21

III.
plication request a rerating, giving no spe-
cific reasons therefor but stating generally
that they have been rated too low, or this
question is considered on an application Tor
increase alone, and in very many cases 1t Is
considered and action taken without, 50
far as the record shows, requests having
been made for such action on the part OF the
pensiouer. In the process OF adjudication,
the board of review has adopted the follow
ing form of endorsement, which is generally
found upon the briefs, as its action: RE-
rating not approved unless manifest injustice
has been done in former rating After ac-
tion, this endorsed case then passes to the
medical DIVISION where the new rate is en-
dorsed 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 adjudication of cases for re-
rating is that OF manifest injustice in the
original or former rating. But an investiga-
ton OF the accompanying exhibits Will. we
think, convince you, as au examination OF the
papers in the Same has convinced us, that
the theory or principle above mentioned has
not been followed as rule Though action
on the face of briefs by the medical division,
where the responsibility seem to have been
placed, assigns as rule no reason
for the rerating as made-that is,
does not set forth that mani
mistake or palpable error committed in
the former rating, II seems manifest, what
ever the reason was theoretically, that prac-
tically and, in fact, that action in large
majority of cases was the result OF mere
difference of opinion from that which gov
erned the original or former adjudication. Il"
The cases which are analysed and cited IN
the report are in all important particulars
substantially Of the same general character
as those cited IN Secretary Mobiles letter to
Commissioner Tanner, dated July "a last,
and published yesterday morning.
The report continues: "One thing seems
manifest, the rule 'palpable or manifest
| error in former adjudications has not in any
proper sense applicable to deliberate official
| Judgment been, as n matter OF fact, the con-
| trolling principle in the majority of re-rated
| cases, however much it may be urged to the
| contrary. Adjudicatious in most cases have
| and judgments have been made, as rule,
| without even these reasons for the differ
encos of opinion appearingn
A number of cases are quoted, shown to
| have been endorsed either by the commits
| sioner or his former secretary, Squres, as
| "forLy-eight hourn cases. That is, they are
| cases in which an order was made requiring
| final adjudication within fOrty-eight hours
| from the issuance of the order. This, the
report says, 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 in
| vestgation.
| In regard to the cases of the pension office
| employees. the report says that in adjudica.
| tion for re-rating the rule 'palpable error
| or manifest injustice" in the former rating
| seems to have been ignored and they were
| without exception re-adjustcd upon mere
| opinion,
| The board in summarizing its conclusions
i
| rules have been followed, in general, so fan
as the application of any prin
| ciple or rule can be discerned
| during period of eight months beginninl
| with December, 1888. covered by our investi
| cation. The practice of rerating pensions il
| cases, the papers of which do not disclose ar
error in the original adjudication, which il
| manifest and palpable, thus leaving as the
| real basis for rerating mere opinion on the
weight of evidence as now viewed, and al
| lowing that opinion 10 annul and change the
| former adjudication, based upon the same
| evidence is violation of Jht
spirit if not the letter of the law ane
| even if this were not so, is inconsistent with
| good practice and contrary to the rules Of
| law. The practice of taking cases out o
| their order and making them ''forty-eight
| hour' cases is especially mischievous in tua
it Is apt to be construed as equivalent to al
| arder to allow, and, because 1t may, for wan
| of sufficient time prevent the deliberate ant
| proper consideration which the case shoulC
| have. Tho decisions of the depart
ment are not always followed b,
the pension office as they should
! be in points of law anu practice
| The rule of practice furnished by II depart
| mental decision should be recognized and fol
lowed by the pension Office, so long as 1t il
not overruled or modified by the authorit!
which made it; and the construction or in
depreciation of the law by the department
should be accepted by the pension ofiice a
binding, and that as applicable not only t
the case in which it is made, but IN all case
involving the same legal question" tn
| board makes number of recommendation
with n view TO the correction of errors whic
| have crept INTO practice through lax method
which are found to prevail III the pension of
flee.