The U.S. Supreme Court issued a major ruling in Bufkin v. Collins, reshaping how veterans’ disability claims are reviewed. In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that judges must defer to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in benefits decisions unless there is a “clear and unmistakable error” in the agency’s assessment. This decision effectively weakens the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule, a long-standing legal principle that typically gave veterans an edge when evidence for and against a claim was nearly equal.
The case focused on veterans Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton, both of whom were denied benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). They presented substantial medical and personal documentation to support their claims. Under the traditional standard, such cases often leaned in favor of the veteran, given the military’s responsibility to support those who served. However, the Court’s new ruling raises the burden of proof on veterans who wish to appeal denied claims.
Under the old standard, if the evidence on both sides was “approximately equal,” the VA was required to rule in favor of the veteran. But the Court’s decision now mandates judicial deference to the VA’s original ruling, unless a “clear and unmistakable error” can be demonstrated—an extremely high legal threshold. This limits courts’ ability to overturn VA decisions, even in cases involving ambiguous or borderline evidence.
Critics, including veterans’ advocacy groups and some legal scholars, argue that this decision undermines the spirit of the VA system, which was designed to give veterans the benefit of doubt in close cases. They claim it places an unfair legal and evidentiary burden on veterans, many of whom already struggle with mental health, financial hardship, or limited access to legal resources.
Supporters of the ruling contend that it protects the integrity and consistency of the VA’s adjudication process. They argue that federal judges should not micromanage expert decisions from a specialized agency unless there’s a blatant mistake. According to this view, deference to the VA promotes stability and discourages frivolous appeals that could overwhelm the system.
Ultimately, Bufkin v. Collins marks a significant shift in how disability claims by veterans will be adjudicated and appealed in the future. The ruling recalibrates the balance of power between veterans and the government, with long-term implications for thousands of current and future claimants navigating the complex VA system.
