PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1471 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1471 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1471 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1471 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-21 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed VA Appeals Reform Act of 2025 would change how veterans pursue benefits claims and appeals. It would require access to claim documents, allow veterans to add evidence during a further VA review of an initial claim decision, and set deadlines for parts of the process. It would also change appeals-board staffing and oversight, establish electronic filing, and change which federal courts hear certain challenges and how they review decisions. These are proposed changes; the supplied history does not establish enactment.
This Act may be cited as the VA Appeals Reform Act of 2025.
(1) In the course of a higher-level review, the veteran may supplement the evidentiary record before the higher-level reviewer. (2) If, during review of the agency of original jurisdiction decision, the higher-level reviewer identifies an error on the part of the agency of original jurisdiction that constitutes a failure to satisfy its duties under section 5103A of this title, and that error occurred prior to the agency of original jurisdiction decision being reviewed, the higher-level reviewer shall return the claim to the agency of original jurisdiction.
the Secretary shall, not later than 90 days after the claimant makes a request for assistance under this subsection, provide any of the following documents:
The Secretary shall establish an electronic filing and case management system for the purposes of processing appeals under this chapter.
(c) Appointment of administrative law judges; performance reviews; scheduling conferences
Section 502 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking the Federal Circuit and inserting Veterans Claims.
in paragraph (4) of subsection (a), by striking clearly erroneous and inserting arbitrary and capricious;
2025-02-21: Introduced in House
Upon a claimant's request, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would have 90 days to provide listed materials. These include the veteran's claims file, paginated copies of components of evidence documents the Secretary considers relevant, the claim decision-maker's contact information, and the contact information and professional résumé of an independent medical expert providing an advisory opinion.
the Secretary shall, not later than 90 days after the claimant makes a request for assistance under this subsection, provide any of the following documents: (1) The veteran’s claims file. (2) A paginated copy of each component of each document in the evidence of record that the Secretary determines is relevant to the claim. (3) The contact information of the individual adjudicating the claim. (4) The contact information and curriculum vitae of any independent medical expert described in section 5109 of this title offering an advisory medical opinion in connection with the claim.
The same document-request provision would cover claim-related correspondence among VA employees and between a VA employee and another person. It would also cover relevant documents held by VA or another federal department or agency that the claimant adequately identifies and authorizes VA to obtain.
(5) A copy of any correspondence relating to the claim between— (A) one or more employees of the Department; and (B) an employee of the Department and any other individual. (6) Upon the request of the claimant, a copy of any document relevant to the claim that the claimant adequately identifies and authorizes the Secretary to obtain that is in the possession of— (A) the Secretary; or (B) the head of any Federal department or agency.
VA's duty to help a claimant would continue until the office initially deciding the claim schedules a hearing to decide it. The bill would also replace an assistance exception referring to new and relevant evidence with wording referring to conditions. The surrounding existing subsection is not supplied, so that second change cannot be fully explained from this bundle.
The duty of the Secretary to provide assistance under this section to a claimant with respect to a claim under this section shall continue until such time as the agency of original jurisdiction schedules a hearing to adjudicate the claim.
in subsection (i) (as so redesignated), by striking except when new and relevant evidence is presented or secured, as and inserting except as provided under the conditions;
The bill would add detail to benefit-decision notices: applicable page citations, regulations included as an appendix, unmet requirements leading to a denial, a summary of appeal rights, and the diagnostic codes and applicable regulation for the disability percentage. The complete existing notice requirements are not reproduced.
in section 5104(b)— (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting before the period at the end , including citations to applicable page numbers.; (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting , included as an appendix after regulations;
denial— (A) an identification of elements not satisfied leading to the denial; and (B) a summary of the rights of the veteran to appeal such denial.
in paragraph (7), by inserting , including the diagnostic codes used in the determination of the disability percentage and a citation to the applicable regulation after compensation;
Veterans could add evidence during higher-level review, a further VA review of the initial claim decision. If the reviewer found that the office initially deciding the claim had failed its assistance duties before making the decision under review, the reviewer would have to return the claim to that office.
(1) In the course of a higher-level review, the veteran may supplement the evidentiary record before the higher-level reviewer. (2) If, during review of the agency of original jurisdiction decision, the higher-level reviewer identifies an error on the part of the agency of original jurisdiction that constitutes a failure to satisfy its duties under section 5103A of this title, and that error occurred prior to the agency of original jurisdiction decision being reviewed, the higher-level reviewer shall return the claim to the agency of original jurisdiction.
VA would have to decide a supplemental claim again, considering all evidence on record, when new and material evidence is presented or obtained, the Board identifies a clear and unmistakable error by the initial decision-making office, or a law or regulation enacted after denial of the original claim permits the veteran to bring the supplemental claim. The bill does not define the new-and-material-evidence standard here.
The Secretary shall readjudicate a supplemental claim, taking into consideration all of the evidence of record when, with respect to such supplemental claim— (1) new and material evidence is presented or secured; (2) the Board of Veterans Appeals identifies a clear and unmistakable error on the part of the agency of original jurisdiction; or (3) a law or regulation enacted after the date of the denial of the original claim permits the veteran to bring such supplemental claim.
For both VA Secretary decisions and Board decisions, the bill would specify errors included in “clear and unmistakable error.” These include an error of law, fact, or application of law to fact apparent on the decision's face that affected its outcome, and misinterpreting or misapplying a statute or an unambiguous regulation, even when the decision otherwise complied with VA regulations then in effect.
In this section, the term clear and unmistakable error includes, with respect to a decision by the Secretary, any of the following: (1) Any error of law, fact, or application of law to fact— (A) that is manifest on the face of such decision; and (B) affected the outcome of such decision. (2) The misinterpretation or misapplication of a statute, regardless of whether such decision otherwise complies with regulations issued by the Secretary in effect as of the date of such decision. (3) The misinterpretation or misapplication of an unambiguous regulation, regardless of whether such decision otherwise complies with the regulations described in paragraph (2).
In this section, the term clear and unmistakable error includes, with respect to a decision of the Board, any of the following: (1) Any error of law, fact, or application of law to fact— (A) that is manifest on the face of such decision; and (B) affected the outcome of such decision. (2) The misinterpretation or misapplication of a statute, regardless of whether such decision otherwise complies with regulations issued by the Secretary in effect as of the date of such decision. (3) The misinterpretation or misapplication of an unambiguous regulation, regardless of whether such decision otherwise complies with the regulations described in paragraph (2).
VA would have to take actions needed for prompt handling of claims returned by a higher-level reviewer or sent back by the Board for further work. Those actions would be due within 90 days of the return or remand. The text permits an extension on the claimant's motion for good cause, but names the authority incompletely as “The Board of.” It does not expressly require a final claim decision within 90 days.
The Secretary shall take such actions as may be necessary to provide for the expeditious treatment by the Veterans Benefits Administration of any claim that is— (1) returned by a higher-level adjudicator under section 5104B of this title; or (2) remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
the Secretary shall take the actions under such subsection not later than 90 days after the date on which— (A) a higher-level adjudicator returned such claim; or (B) the Board of Veterans’ Appeals remanded such claim. (2) The Board of may, upon motion of the claimant, extend the deadline under paragraph (1) if the Board determines there is good cause for such extension.
A reasonable attorney fee could be charged or paid for filing a notice of intent to appeal a VA benefits decision under section 511. The cap would be the lesser of $200 or 20 percent of the initial payment from the claimant to the attorney. The text bases that percentage on a claimant-to-attorney payment.
A reasonable fee, not to exceed the lesser of $200 or 20 percent of the initial payment from the claimant to the attorney, may be charged or paid in connection with the filing of a notice of intent to appeal a decision by the Secretary under section 511 of this title affecting the provision of benefits to a claimant.
The Board chairman could designate a retired Armed Forces officer who previously served as a military judge as an acting Board member. The designation would generally last no more than 180 days, subject to an existing exception not reproduced here. The acting member would have to complete training on VA-administered laws that the Secretary considers appropriate.
The Chairman may from time to time designate a retired officer of the Armed Forces who previously served as a military judge (as defined in section 801 of title 10 (article 1 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice)) to serve as an acting member of the Board. Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any such designation shall be for a period not to exceed 180 days, as determined by the Chairman.
An individual designated pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall complete a program of training with respect to the laws administered by the Secretary that the Secretary determines appropriate.
The amended Board-member qualification provision would require an administrative law judge appointed under the cited federal appointment statute who is also a lawyer in good standing with a state bar. The bill does not reproduce that appointment statute.
In section 7101A— (A) in subsection (a)(2), by striking shall be and all that follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting shall be— (A) an administrative law judge appointed under section 3105 of title 5; and (B) a member in good standing of the bar of a State.
The bill would add a requirement to report the number of Board decisions sent back or returned to the Board, broken down by the member who issued each final decision. The surrounding reporting provision is not supplied.
the number of decisions of the Board remanded or returned to the Board, disaggregated by the Board member who issued the final decision so remanded or returned;
A performance panel would review Board members no earlier than one year after job standards are first established and at least once every three years after the standards are established. A review would also be required when, during any 12-month period, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims or a higher authority sends back more than 60 percent of a member's decisions.
The performance review panel shall review the job performance of a member of the Board— (i) not less than one year after the job performance standards under subsection (f) are initially established; (ii) not less often than once every three years after such standards are established; and (iii) when, during any 12-month period, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims or a higher authority remands to the Board more than 60 percent of the decisions issued by such member.
When the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims or a higher authority sends a Board decision back for further proceedings, those proceedings could not be assigned to the Board member who issued that decision.
In the case of a decision of the Board that is remanded to the Board by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims or a higher authority, any subsequent proceeding associated with the decision so remanded may not be assigned to the member of the Board who issued such decision.
Within 90 days after a veteran files a notice of disagreement, the Board would have to hold a video conference with the veteran and any representative to arrange a hearing. During that conference, the Board would have to set a tentative hearing date, provide information about the appeal rules, and provide a Board representative's contact information, including email.
Not later than 90 days after a veteran files a notice of disagreement under subsection (a), the Board of Veterans Appeals shall hold, by picture and voice transmission, a conference with such veteran and the representative of such veteran, if any, to schedule such hearing.
(v) information relating to the rules governing an appeal under this chapter; and (vi) contact information for a representative of the Board, including an electronic mail address; and (B) schedule a tentative date for such hearing.
At the scheduling conference, the Board would have to give the veteran at least 30 days to request a hearing, at least 30 days to obtain a lawyer, at least 60 days to identify disputed Board determinations or findings, and at least 120 days to submit related evidence.
During the conference under paragraph (1), the Board shall— (A) provide the veteran— (i) not fewer than 30 days for such veteran to request a hearing; (ii) not fewer than 30 days to secure counsel for such hearing; (iii) not fewer than 60 days for such veteran to submit to the Board the specific determinations or findings of the Board with which the claimant disagrees; (iv) not fewer than 120 days for such veteran to submit evidence relating to the determinations described in clause (iii);
The Secretary could extend those four preparation deadlines on the veteran's motion for good cause. The bill expressly includes VA's failure to provide requested relevant or material information as a possible reason.
The Secretary may, upon motion of the veteran, extend the deadlines described in clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph (A) for good cause, including the failure of the Secretary to provide requested relevant or material information.
The bill would replace references to two separate Board dockets with one docket. It would also delete parts of section 7107(a)(3) and add “if applicable” at the end of section 7107(e). The existing provisions are not reproduced, so the full effects of those deletions and the added qualification cannot be determined from this bundle.
In section 7107— (A) in subsection (a)— (i) by striking two separate dockets each place it appears and inserting one docket; and (ii) in paragraph (3)— (I) by striking (A); (II) by striking , except that cases and all that follows through are assigned; and (III) by striking subparagraph (B);
(B) in subsection (e), by inserting , if applicable before the period at the end;
The bill contains a provision for the Board to provide a veteran, upon request and without charge, a hearing transcript and a digital recording of any video-and-audio transmission considered during the hearing. The supplied sentence omits an auxiliary such as “shall” before “provide,” leaving the directive grammatically incomplete.
Hearing transcripts The Board, upon the request of the veteran and at no cost to such veteran, provide such veteran with a copy of the transcript of the hearing and a digital recording of any picture and voice transmission considered during such hearing.
VA would have to establish an electronic appeal-filing and case-management system. It would include an online document database and a way for veterans, their attorneys, or their representatives to submit appeal documents in PDF or another commercially available format. VA would have to consider the electronic filing system used by federal district courts.
The Secretary shall establish an electronic filing and case management system for the purposes of processing appeals under this chapter.
(1) an internet database of documents relating to appeals under this chapter;
(3) a mechanism by which a veteran, or the attorney or representative of a veteran, can submit to the Board of Veterans Appeals documents relating to an appeal under this chapter, in portable document format or other commercially available format, through such internet database.
the Secretary shall consider the case management/electronic filing system (CM/ECF) administered by United States District Courts.
The system would include a mechanism through which attorneys approved by VA's Office of General Counsel to represent veterans before the Board may access the database to the extent the Secretary determines appropriate. This does not guarantee access to each approved attorney. The Secretary could require a certificate of good standing from a state court or federal district court. Training for the approved attorneys would have to be available within one year after the program is established.
subject to subsection (d), a mechanism by which attorneys approved by the Office of the General Counsel of the Department to represent a veteran before the Board of Veterans Appeals may access such internet database to an extent the Secretary determines appropriate;
Not later than one year after the date on which the Secretary establishes the program required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall make available to attorneys described in subsection (b)(2) training on such program.
As a condition of access to the internet database described in subsection (b)(2), the Secretary may require an attorney to provide to the Secretary a certificate of good standing from a State court or Federal district court.
Section 2(e) attempts to set an implementation deadline for the electronic document-submission mechanism, but says only “180” after enactment without a time unit. It also cites section 7112 even though section 2(c)(7) creates section 7114. The supplied text therefore does not support a definite 180-day deadline.
7114. Program to establish electronic case management and filing system
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall establish the mechanism described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b) of section 7112 of title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (c)(7), by not later than 180 after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The bill would add permitted disclosures of medical records covered by section 7332: to a patient and the patient's attorney for an appeal under chapter 71, and to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for filing an appeal under chapter 72. The source does not reproduce the existing law defining which records and other confidentiality conditions are covered.
Disclosure of certain medical records Section 7332(b)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs: (J) To the patient, and the attorney of such patient, if any, for the purposes of using such record in connection with an appeal under chapter 71 of this title. (K) To the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, for purposes of filing an appeal under chapter 72 of this title.
The bill would change the court named in section 502 from the Federal Circuit to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The underlying section is not supplied, so this bundle does not establish the full range of challenges that would move between courts.
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (1) Expansion Section 502 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking the Federal Circuit and inserting Veterans Claims.
In section 7261(a)(4), the bill would replace the court-review standard “clearly erroneous” with “arbitrary and capricious.” Because the surrounding provision is missing, the exact decisions and findings covered and the full effect of that replacement cannot be established from the supplied text.
Section 7261 of such title is amended— (A) in paragraph (4) of subsection (a), by striking clearly erroneous and inserting arbitrary and capricious;
The bill would delete section 7261(c), redesignate subsection (d) as subsection (c), and rewrite part of that redesignated subsection. It would replace language limiting review to questions about regulatory compliance and validity with language requiring review of “such decision” and accompanying factual findings “by trial de novo.” The missing surrounding text prevents identifying the full scope of this change or treating it as a rule for every veterans appeal.
(B) by striking subsection (c); (C) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c); and (D) in subsection (c) (as so redesignated), by striking shall review only questions raised as to compliance with and the validity of the regulation and inserting shall review such decision and the accompanying findings of fact by trial de novo.
The bill would add appeals from final decisions of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction provision. It would also repeal section 7292 and delete section 7252(c). Those existing provisions are not reproduced, so the full effect on appeal rights and limits cannot be determined from this bundle.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1) Expansion Section 1295(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
(15) of an appeal from a final decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
(2) Repeal of certain provision Section 7292 of title 38, United States Code, is repealed. (3) Conforming amendments Section 7252 of such title is amended by striking subsection (c).
The supplied actions snapshot, updated July 14, 2025, records introduction in the House and referral to the Veterans' Affairs and Judiciary committees on February 21, 2025. It supplies no later action and does not establish the bill's subsequent status or whether it was enacted.
Source snapshot updated 2025-07-14T15:28:32Z.
2025-02-21: Referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
2025-02-21: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-21. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
Review of the complete supplied introduced text identified no provision unrelated to the bill's main subject or policy change attached to appropriations. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
Review of the complete supplied introduced text identified no congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places. This text-only conclusion does not establish formal earmark status or absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
Review of the complete supplied introduced text identified no materially narrow preferential carve-out or special exemption. Ordinary claimant protections, program participation, and routine administration alone do not qualify. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 14, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI