• Bufkin v. Collins, The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) must review VA’s application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule the same way it makes all other determinations: reviewing legal issues de novo and factual issues for clear error. This opinion continues the current standard of review.
  • Chisolm v. Collins, the opinion from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) in Chisholm holds that “while a supplemental claim needs to be filed on a form prescribed by the Secretary, it doesn’t need to be filed on a supplemental claim form.”  This is great for Veterans, who often do not understand which form VA wants them to use.
  • Ingram v. Collins, the opinion from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) in Ingram holds that orthopedic conditions should be rated based in how bad they are even if medication helps with symptoms.  This is good for Veterans but also means that representatives need to help Veterans submit statements explaining their limitations, especially how their range of motion is affected when they are not taking medication.
  •   Ley v. McDonough, In Ley v. McDonough, The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) ruled that a Veteran who delayed filing a VA disability claim because their VA doctor intentionally chose not to tell them that they had leukemia may not be awarded an earlier effective date prior to the date they first filed a claim for compensation.  This is bad for Veterans because it leaves them with no remedy when a VA doctor deliberately chooses not to share important information.
  • Rudisill v. McDonough (UPDATE), VA has announced key policy decisions as to how it will implement the April 2024 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rudisill.  That decision ruled Veterans may now access up to 48 months of combined education benefits under both the Montgomery G.I. Bill and the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. In order to qualify for these additional benefits Veterans must have served two or more separate periods of service. Veterans may use either one, in any order, up to a total 48-month aggregate cap.  This Supreme Court opinion is good for Veterans because Veterans may use as many as 12 months of VA education benefit payments more than VA’s prior interpretation of the law.  VA’s new implementation plan addresses several issues including notification, automatic eligibility decisions, and extension of eligibility.
  • Soto v. United States The bottom line: The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the general six-year limit on retroactive benefits does not apply to “Combat-Related Special Compensation” (CRSC). This is a significant win for eligible Veterans as it opens the door to longer retroactive awards for those who delayed applying. Although these benefits are not administered by VA, they interact with disability compensation, and it is important to understand the relationship. 
  • Willen v. Collins The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) held that a Board remand can contain a final decision that is appealable to the CAVC even when the remand order is not labeled as a denial. This case is good for Veterans but applies to a relatively narrow set of circumstances. 
  • Bilharz v. Collins The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) held that a Veteran who has a Board hearing is not entitled to have the same Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) decide their appeal. Due process does not automatically require the hearing VLJ to be the deciding VLJ. This decision is not favorable to Veterans because it denies them the chance to have their credibility evaluated by the person who heard their testimony.
  • Adams v. Collins The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) held that obesity can be a “disability” for VA purposes if it causes functional impairment earning capacity. AT the same time, the Court found obesity is not a “disease” for direct service connection under 38 U.S.C. § 1110. This is a good decision for Veterans because it allows Veterans service connection for obesity on a secondary basis.
  • Loomis v. Collins The opinion from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) held that VA education benefits can only be used for flight school to earn a
    private pilot’s license if the program is either:
    1. Approved by the state or by VA, or
    2. Part of a college’s curriculum and is “constructively approved” by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Meeting FAA requirements alone does not qualify. This decision limits how Veterans can use their education benefits for private pilot training

  • Wright v. Collins The Federal Circuit held that once a child of Veteran uses Dependents’ Education Benefits, the Veteran may no longer claim that child as a dependent for disability compensation, even after those benefits are exhausted. This is a bad decision for Veterans because it makes the loss of dependency status permanent, even if the child continues in school after their education benefit runs out.
  • Stewart v. Collins The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) held that VA cannot useseverance of service connection procedures to discontinue Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) because SMC is not a service connection, it is a “rate of compensation.” The Court also confirmed that the 60% requirement under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) (that a Veteran have additional disability or disabilities independently rated as 60 percent or more), can be met through multiple disabilities that combine to 60% or more. This decision is good for Veterans because it protects existing SMC awards from being wrongfully terminated and clarifies that combined ratings can satisfy SMC(s) requirements.
  • Wiggins v. Collins The Court held that the Board OF Veterans’ Appeals (Board) is notrequired to expedite cases involving Military Sexual Trauma (MST).
    This case is neutral for Veterans.