The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889-10-21

The reyort. therefore. covers all cases
numbering beaow l-a.uN rerssed during
TIE months OF December lSsS. and Jana-
arr. February. March. Ap-sl. NAY. June
and Insy. isS9. showing the total number
OF eases rsrssed during the eight months
specsnssi, and also showing that
Ia about 81 per cent OF the tosai
number of cases re-ss~d the re-ating
extends back 10 the date OF discharge.
Comment Is made that the statement indi-
Gates that there has been = substantial in
crease IN the number Of cases reratei from
month 10 month during this period, which
the report says is indicative cf what is ap-
parensly the established policy Of the
euresa, the result OF which, If continued.
VIII ee TO readjudicase and rerate very
large percentage of the cases on the files
The report continues. The mode OF
procedure in the majority Of eases Is about
as follows Pensioners, prom pied by the
present liberal policy of the bureau. In
making applications for an increase OF
pension. also in some applications request
reTaung. giving no specific reasons
therefor, bat stating generally that they
have been rated too Iow. As this
question is considered on an
application for increase alone, and
IN very many cases it is considered and ac-
ton taken without, so far as the record
shows. request having been made for
such action on the part OF the penssoner.
In the process of adjudication the board of
review has adopted the following form of
Endorsement which Is generally found upon
the briefs: rerasing not approved unless a
manifest injustice has been done in the
former rating. After the action is thus in
co-sed, the case then passes TO the medical
division, where new rate Is indorsed on
the face of the brief without in most cases
assigning any reaion why the former rating
should be disturbed.
The theory or rule which the Office
claims TO follow in the adjudication of
cases for rerating is that of manifest in
justice in the original or former rating.
bat an inspection of the accompanying ex-
hibits will, We think. convince you. as ex-
animation 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 re-
sponsihility seems TO have been placed. as
signs as a rule no reason for the 1reratings
as made, that is, does not set forth that
manifest injustice has been done or mis-
take or palpable error committed in the
former ratings. il seems manifest that
whatever the reason was theoretically. that
practically and in fact the ac-
ton III large majority of cases
was the result OF mere difference of opin-
ion from that which governed the original
or former adjudieations. Ii was the opin-
ion of today overturning that of ten or
twenty years ago on the weight of evil
dence, and in many cases on evidence
which, properly considered and weighed.
would, under the existing law, rules and
regulations be found inadequate. were the
cases now properly open for adjudication
on the weight OF evidence
The cases which are anaIyzed and cited
in the report are in all important particu-
lars substantially Of the same gen.
erM character as those cited in
Secretary Mobiles letter to Commits
sioner Tanner, dated July "a last and
published yesterday morning. The report
continues: "0ne thing seems manifest
The rule Of palpable or manifest error in
former adjudications has not. in any proper
sense applicable to deliberate official
Judgment, been as. matter of fact
the controlling principle in a
majority of the rerated cases, however
much it may be urged to the contrary.
Adludications in most cases have been
based on mere difference of opinion. and
judgments have been made. as rule, with
out even these reasons for those differences
of opinions appearing.
A number of cases are quoted. shown TO
have been indorsed by either the commits.
sioner or his former secretary, George Il.
Squires, as 'forty-eight hour" eases. That
is. they are cases in which the 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 ii has. they say, an existence covering
the entire period of the investigation. -
In regard TO the cases OF the pension
office employees, the report says that in the
adjudication the rerating rule OF 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 its conelu-
sions. says substantially the same prin-
ciples have been followed in general. So far
as discerned, during the period of eight
months beginning with December, isss.
The practice OF rerating pensions in
cases the papers in which do not disclose
error in the original adjudication which is
manifest or palpabie, thus leaving as a real
basis for rera,ing mere opinion on the
weight of evidence as now viewed, and
allowing that opinion to annal and change
the former adjudication based upon the
same evidence is a violation of the spirit,
If not the letter of the law and even il this
were not SO, il Is inconsistent with good
practice, and contrary 10 the well-estab-
lished rules OF evidence.
The practice OF taking cases out OF their
order and making them ''forty-eight hour"
cases is especially michieyous in that it is
ap; 10 be construed as equivalent to an or
der to allow. and because il may for want
OF sufficient time prevent deliberation and
proper consideration, which they would
have The decisions of the department
are not always followed by the pension
Office as they should be in points Of Law
and practice. The rule of practice fnrn-
ished by the department and the
decisions should be recognized and
followed by the pension office. 80