PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 5, 2015
Express Appeals Act
Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to: (1) carry out a five-year pilot program to provide the option of an alternative appeals process to determine appeals of claims for disability compensation more quickly, and (2) inform claimants about such program.
Describes appeals filed under the pilot program as "fully developed appeals."
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes a claimant to elect to file a fully developed appeal by filing with the Secretary: (1) a notice of disagreement along with the claimant's written election to have the appeal determined under the pilot program, (2) all evidence that the claimant believes is needed for the appeal, and (3) a statement of the argument in support of the claim. Requires the Secretary to transfer jurisdiction over a fully developed appeal directly to the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
Requires a claimant to make such election: (1) at any time during the traditional appeal process if the claimant has filed a traditional appeal before the pilot program commences, or (2) when the claimant files the notice of disagreement if the claimant has not filed a traditional appeal.
Directs the Secretary to inform a claimant who seeks to change a traditional appeal to a fully developed appeal as to whether any time will be saved. Allows a claimant who elects to file a fully developed appeal to elect to revert to a traditional appeal at any time.
Requires the Board of Veterans' Appeals to: (1) maintain fully developed appeals on a separate docket; (2) hear fully developed appeals in the order received; (3) decide not more than one fully developed appeal for each four traditional appeals decided, though this ratio may be adjusted for fairness purposes beginning one year after the pilot program begins; and (4) decide, to the extent practicable, each fully developed appeal within one year of a claimant's filing the notice of disagreement.
Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) the effects of new evidence submitted or additional information needed after a fully developed appeal is filed, and (2) a prohibition against the Board providing hearings for fully developed appeals.
Directs the Board to establish an office to develop federal records, independent medical opinions, and new medical exams that the Board deems necessary to decide a fully developed appeal.
People & committees
Rep. O'Rourke, Beto [D-TX-16] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs.
Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.800 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.800 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.800 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.800 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.