PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-558.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 28, 2016
Express Appeals Act of 2016
This bill directs the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 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.
Appeals filed under the pilot program are described as "fully developed appeals."
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
A claimant may elect to file a fully developed appeal by filing with the VA: (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.
A claimant who elects the pilot program may elect to revert to the standard appeals process at any time. Such reversion, however, shall be final.
Such a claimant or an electing claimant who is later determined to be ineligible for the pilot program shall revert to the standard appeals process without any penalty other than the loss of docket number.
The VA shall transfer jurisdiction over a fully developed appeal directly to the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
The Board shall:
maintain fully developed appeals on a separate docket;
hear fully developed appeals in the order received;
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
decide each fully developed appeal within one year of a claimant's filing the notice of disagreement.
A claimant may not submit or identify to the Board any new evidence relating to a fully developed appeal after filing such appeal unless the claimant reverts to the standard appeals process.
The Board shall establish an office to develop necessary federal records, independent medical opinions, and new medical exams.
The Board may not provide hearings for fully developed appeals.
People & committees
Sen. Sullivan, Dan [R-AK] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 114-558.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
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 S.2473 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 S.2473 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 S.2473 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 S.2473 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.