The Supreme Court recently issued a significant ruling in Bufkin v. Collins, a case that will shape how veterans challenge decisions made by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In a 7–2 decision, the Justices determined that federal courts must defer to the VA’s conclusions unless a clear and unmistakable error has been made. This marks a meaningful change to how benefit appeals have been handled for decades and has raised important questions about the future of veterans’ disability claims.
For generations, a principle known as the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule guided the decision-making process in close cases. When evidence for and against a veteran’s claim was nearly evenly matched, the rule ensured that the veteran received the more favorable outcome. The system recognized that service-related health issues are often difficult to document, especially years after military duty ends. Because of that reality, veterans historically had a slightly more supportive standard during appeals.
However, the Court’s ruling in Bufkin v. Collins reshapes that landscape. Judges must now accept the VA’s decisions unless the evidence shows a clear, undeniable error—an exceptionally high bar. As a result, veterans will need to provide much stronger proof when challenging denied claims, even in cases where the evidence appears balanced.
The Background of the Case
The case arose from the experiences of two veterans, Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton. Both men sought disability benefits based on symptoms related to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Their applications included documentation, medical opinions, and personal accounts that they believed demonstrated the effects of their service.
Despite the evidence presented, the VA denied their claims. When they appealed, they argued that the decisions should be reconsidered under the traditional benefit-of-the-doubt standard. According to that longstanding rule, veterans are supposed to prevail when the evidence supporting and opposing a claim is equally persuasive.
But the appeals courts interpreting their cases applied a far stricter rule. They held that unless the VA made an unmistakable mistake—one that was obvious and undeniable—the original decisions must be upheld. That approach ultimately led the case to the Supreme Court, which has now endorsed that stricter interpretation.
What the Ruling Means for Veterans
The Court’s decision introduces a notable shift in how veterans must approach disability appeals:
1. A Higher Burden of Proof
Instead of receiving the benefit of the doubt, veterans must demonstrate that the VA’s conclusions contain a clear error. This is one of the most demanding legal standards. It is not enough to show that another decision could be reasonable; veterans must show that the VA’s decision was unreasonable or incorrect to a degree that is unmistakable.
2. Less Flexibility in Close Cases
Many disability claims involve complex medical considerations, conflicting evidence, or documentation that is incomplete due to the circumstances of military service. Previously, when two interpretations of the evidence were equally supported, the veteran received the favorable decision. That presumption is now weakened, reducing the likelihood of reversals in tight cases.
3. More Influence for the VA
The ruling reinforces the VA’s authority in evaluating and interpreting evidence. Courts will intervene less often, which increases the importance of the initial VA decision and the evidence provided during the earliest stages of a claim.
4. Longer and More Challenging Appeals
Veterans appealing denials may need more extensive documentation, expert testimony, or legal support to meet the new threshold. This could create additional stress, cost, and uncertainty for individuals already navigating health challenges.
Why the Decision Matters
For many veterans, disability benefits provide crucial support—financially, medically, and emotionally. These benefits can affect access to treatment, long-term economic stability, and overall quality of life. A change to the appeals process has real-world effects on thousands of people who rely on the system to help address conditions connected to their service.
Advocates for veterans’ rights have expressed concern that the ruling may discourage some veterans from appealing unfavorable decisions, especially if they lack access to legal representation. Others worry that the ruling may unintentionally place more pressure on the initial claims process, which is already known for significant backlogs and inconsistencies.
Supporters of the decision argue that it brings clarity to the appeals process and maintains appropriate respect for the VA’s expertise. They note that clearer standards may reduce litigation and ensure that courts do not substitute their judgment for that of specialized professionals within the agency.
A Turning Point for Veterans’ Law
Whether seen as a clarification or a tightening of standards, the ruling in Bufkin v. Collins marks one of the most notable changes to veterans’ benefits law in recent memory. The decision suggests that veterans seeking disability support may face a steeper path during appeals, especially in cases where the evidence is complex or where reasonable experts might disagree.
The ruling underscores the importance of strong initial applications, thorough medical documentation, and early preparation when filing claims. It also highlights the evolving nature of veterans’ rights and the continuing need for accessible support systems that ensure fair treatment for those who have served.
To fully understand the significance of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bufkin v. Collins, it helps to look at how the benefit-of-the-doubt rule originally emerged. For decades, the rule served as a recognition of the unique challenges veterans face when trying to prove a service-connected condition. Military injuries are not always well-documented, especially in high-pressure or combat environments. Service members may not have immediate medical access when an injury occurs, or the symptoms of issues such as PTSD may surface only years after discharge.
Recognizing these realities, Congress built a more flexible standard into the veterans’ benefits system. When two interpretations of the evidence were equally plausible, the veteran was supposed to receive the more favorable outcome. This didn’t mean every claim was automatically approved—only that in very close cases, the system would lean toward supporting the veteran.
The Supreme Court’s new ruling does not remove this rule entirely, but it significantly weakens its power during appeals. The VA may still apply the rule internally, but courts reviewing the agency’s decisions must now grant far greater deference to the VA’s interpretations.
This distinction is crucial because appeals courts historically acted as an important check whenever there were concerns about inconsistent or mistaken decisions. Without that safeguard operating as broadly as before, veterans’ advocates are concerned that more individuals may receive denials that are difficult to overturn—even when the evidence supporting their claims is strong.
The Challenges of Demonstrating a “Clear Error”
Under the new standard, the key question becomes: What qualifies as a clear error?
This term has a very specific meaning in legal contexts. It is not enough to show that the VA might be wrong or that another expert might interpret the evidence differently. The error must be so obvious that it leaves no room for reasonable disagreement.
For example, imagine a veteran submitted multiple medical evaluations supporting a claim, but the VA relied on a single conflicting report. Under the old standard, a court might have sent the case back, stating that the evidence was too evenly balanced and deserved reconsideration. Under the new standard, the court might instead conclude that while the VA’s decision could be debated, it was not clearly and unmistakably incorrect.
This creates a higher hurdle for veterans, especially for conditions that rely heavily on subjective experiences—such as chronic pain, mental health symptoms, or conditions that fluctuate over time.
Impact on Veterans with Invisible Disabilities
The ruling may have the greatest effect on veterans with conditions that are difficult to measure with objective tests. PTSD, traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), Gulf War illness, and certain chronic pain conditions do not always appear clearly on scans or in laboratory results. Diagnoses rely on the symptoms the veteran reports, as well as evaluations from trained clinicians.
In the cases of Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton, their appeals centered on PTSD. They argued that the VA overlooked credible evidence supporting their claims. Under the old standard, their cases might have been re-evaluated based on the closely balanced nature of the documentation. Under the new rule, courts must uphold the VA’s decision unless the denial is undeniably incorrect.
This shift could influence a wide range of future cases involving mental health claims. Conditions like PTSD often involve deeply personal accounts of trauma, and those accounts may differ depending on the circumstances of the evaluation. A stricter appeals standard may make it harder for veterans to overcome initial denials even when they have compelling evidence.
Concerns Raised by Veterans’ Organizations
Many veterans’ groups have responded to the decision with concern, expressing the belief that the ruling creates an uneven playing field. Several organizations have long argued that the VA’s initial decision process is already challenging for veterans, citing wait times, administrative delays, and inconsistent interpretations of medical evidence.
With the new ruling, groups worry that fewer denials will be corrected during appeals. The appeals system has historically acted as a balancing mechanism, offering veterans a second chance when their first application did not reflect the full scope of their conditions. If appeals courts cannot intervene as easily, more veterans may face prolonged struggles to receive benefits.
Some advocates also point out that the burden of proof may fall most heavily on veterans who do not have access to legal representation or medical experts who can help strengthen their cases. While some veterans can secure assistance through nonprofit organizations or service officers, others must navigate the system alone—which can be overwhelming and confusing.
Supporters’ View: Consistency and Stability
While many advocates express concerns, supporters of the ruling highlight a different perspective. They argue that the decision reinforces the VA’s authority and helps create consistency across cases. According to this viewpoint, allowing courts to more easily overturn agency decisions could lead to a patchwork of interpretations, depending on the judge, court district, or individual circumstances.
Supporters also believe that the VA, as a specialized agency with extensive medical and military expertise, is in the best position to evaluate complex claims. They argue that high levels of judicial deference ensure that the VA remains the central decision-maker and that courts do not substitute their own judgment without a compelling reason.
Many also point out that the ruling could reduce lengthy legal battles, making the appeals process more predictable and less prone to back-and-forth decisions.
Looking Ahead: What Veterans Can Do Now
Although the decision imposes stricter standards, veterans still have important tools to strengthen their claims:
1. Submit detailed medical evidence early.
The clearer the documentation from the start, the easier it is to avoid a denial.
2. Work with accredited representatives.
Service officers, veteran organizations, and legal clinics can provide invaluable support.
3. Keep thorough records.
Tracking symptoms, treatments, and impacts on daily life can help build a more compelling case.
4. Appeal promptly.
Timely appeals ensure that potential errors can be corrected as quickly as possible.
5. Seek expert opinions when necessary.
Specialist evaluations can clarify complex medical issues and strengthen the evidentiary record.
The ruling may make the appeals process more challenging, but veterans still have legitimate pathways to receive the support they deserve.