PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 23, 2017
Department of Veterans Affairs Appeals Modernization Act of 2017
This bill amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits appeals process to permit a claimant to request:
a review of the agency of original jurisdiction's decision by a higher-level adjudicator within the agency based on the original evidence; or
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
a Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) review under which no BVA hearing is requested and no additional evidence may be submitted or under which a BVA hearing is requested and the appellant requests an opportunity to submit additional evidence at, and within 90 days of, the hearing (for which the BVA shall maintain two separate dockets).
A finding favorable to a claimant is binding on all subsequent VA adjudicators unless clear and convincing evidence is shown to the contrary.
If a claim is denied the claimant may, within one year after the agency of original jurisdiction issues a decision with respect to such claim: (1) file a request for higher-level review, (2) file a supplemental claim, or (3) file a notice of disagreement.
The BVA may remand a claim to the agency to obtain a corrective advisory medical opinion.
The VA shall provide for expedited treatment by the agency of original jurisdiction of any claim that is remanded by the BVA.
The bill revises effective dates of awards provisions.
The bill repeals a provision authorizing the BVA to secure an independent medical expert's opinion when warranted by the medical complexity or controversy involved in an appeal case.
The VA's duty to assist a claimant shall not apply: (1) once the claimant is provided notice of the agency's initial decision, and (2) to higher-level agency or BVA review.
The VA is not required to send notice for a supplemental claim or to readjudicate a claim that has been disallowed except when new and relevant evidence is presented or secured (currently such provision applies to reopening such claim).
A claimants's notice of disagreement must set out specific allegations of error of fact or law. The BVA is authorized to dismiss an appeal that fails to do so.
People & committees
Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT] · D–CT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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 11, 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.712 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.712 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.712 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.712 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.