The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling that could reshape how veterans’ disability claims are reviewed nationwide. In a 7–2 decision in Bufkin v. Collins, the Court held that federal appellate courts are not required to independently reapply the VA’s long-standing “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule when reviewing disability cases. The decision marks a major shift in veterans’ law, sparking both praise and concern among legal scholars, advocacy groups, and veterans’ organizations.

At the center of the case was a crucial question:
When a veteran appeals a denial of benefits, how deeply should federal courts scrutinize the VA’s handling of the benefit-of-the-doubt standard?

For decades, that rule has been a protective cornerstone of veterans’ law. It ensures that when the evidence for and against a disability claim is evenly balanced, the tie goes to the veteran.

Understanding the Benefit-of-the-Doubt Rule

The rule exists because many veterans struggle to fully document service-connected injuries. Records can be lost. Medical evidence from decades past can be incomplete or impossible to obtain. Congress created the benefit-of-the-doubt standard as a compassionate safeguard, placing the burden on the government — not the veteran — in cases of uncertainty.

In practice, VA adjudicators are required to give veterans every reasonable consideration. But the deeper issue arises on appeal:
Should federal courts reapply that rule from scratch, or defer to the VA’s judgment?

Lower courts have been inconsistent for years, with some reevaluating the evidence entirely and others deferring to the VA’s expertise. Bufkin v. Collins forced the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict.

The Case Behind the Ruling

Mr. Bufkin, a former Army servicemember, applied for disability benefits related to a medical condition he said was connected to his service. The VA denied his claim, concluding that the evidence wasn’t strong enough.