GARP Chapter 20: Splitting One Score Between Two Conditions

Chapter 19 takes points off. Chapter 20 gives them back.

It is technical, and almost nobody asks for it. Here is why you should.

The problem

Say you have two accepted conditions in the same body system: heart disease and chronic bronchitis.

Your breathing tests give one combined score of 20 points.

But there are also diagnosis-based tables. Your heart disease rates 10 on one. Your bronchitis rates 5 on another.

Normally you take the higher of the function score and the diagnosis score. 20 beats 10, and 20 beats 5. So you get 20 and the other two are thrown away.

That is unfair, because the 20 is doing the work of both conditions at once.

What apportionment does

It splits the single 20 between the two conditions, so each can be compared with its own diagnosis table separately.

Using the Guide's own example, with the contributions judged at 2 to 1 in favour of the bronchitis:

• The 20 splits into 14 (bronchitis) and 7 (heart disease).
• Bronchitis: 14 against its table rating of 5. Take 14.
• Heart disease: 7 against its table rating of 10. Take 10.
• Join 14 and 10 through the Combined Values Chart → 25.

Without apportionment: 20. With it: 25.

The safety net

The Guide states it plainly: apportionment can never leave you worse off than you would have been without it.

So there is no downside to asking. The worst case is that it changes nothing.

When it applies

Two conditions have to be met:

1. You need to compare a rating from one table with a rating from another table for a given condition, and
2. two or more accepted conditions contribute to the ratings.

In practice that means: whenever you have more than one accepted condition in the same body system, and each has its own diagnosis-based table.

Common examples:

• Heart disease plus a lung condition (Chapter 1)
• Reflux plus irritable bowel plus a liver condition (Chapter 6)
• Several gut or several heart conditions of any combination

Getting the ratio right

The split is expressed as a simple ratio — 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 1:1:2 — and it has to be based on medical advice.

So this is another place where a specific sentence from your specialist is worth money: "The chronic bronchitis contributes roughly twice as much as the ischaemic heart disease to his exercise limitation."

What this means for you

• Ask whether apportionment was considered if you have two or more accepted conditions in one body system.
• It cannot make things worse. The Guide guarantees that.
• Ask your specialist for the ratio in plain terms.
• Do not confuse it with Chapter 19. Chapter 19 involves non-accepted conditions and reduces. This one involves accepted conditions and can increase.

Common questions

Do I have to ask for it?

It should be applied where it is needed. In practice, asking the question is worthwhile.

Could it lower my rating?

No. The Guide says the result can never be less than without it.

How do I know if it applies to me?

If you have two accepted conditions in the same chapter, and the assessment produced one shared functional score, it is worth asking.

Next in this series

Chapter 21: paired organs.

Want a hand with yours?

If you have a permanent impairment assessment coming up, we do these every week. Call 0429 146 039 or email reception@vhc.org.au.

More reading

What is the GARP? · The chapter map · DVA Claims: PI points calculator · Permanent Impairment Assessments · DVA claims · SoP library

This is general information for Australian veterans. It is not legal advice. It explains Chapter 20 of the Guide to Determining Impairment and Compensation 2026 (F2026L00595), which started on 1 July 2026. The full rules are on the Federal Register of Legislation. Check your own situation with DVA on 1800 VETERAN (1800 838 372).