The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a critical case this week, one that could reshape how the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) handles disability claims and appeals. The case, Bufkin v. McDonough, questions whether the VA and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims have properly applied the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule when deciding disability claims—a standard that could impact thousands of current and past claims.

At the center of the case are veterans Joshua Bufkin, who served in the Air Force, and Norman Thornton, a former Army soldier. Both argue that their disability claims were unfairly denied because the VA and subsequent appeals courts failed to uphold the rule granting veterans the benefit of the doubt in cases where the evidence is balanced.

Under the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2002, veterans are legally entitled to have ambiguous evidence resolved in their favor. The Veterans Appeals Court, established in 1988, reviews the decisions made by the Veterans Board of Appeals to ensure compliance with these regulations. However, Bufkin and Thornton allege that neither the Board nor the courts properly applied this standard.

Bufkin served in the Air Force from 2005 to 2006, a period marked by personal challenges. With a wife facing mental health struggles and the pressure of balancing family and service, Bufkin sought help from an Air Force psychiatrist and received a hardship discharge. Later, when he applied for VA disability benefits, conflicting opinions arose about whether he suffered from service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Despite his claims, adjudicators, the Board, and the court all rejected his application, asserting insufficient evidence of a service connection.

Thornton, who served during the Persian Gulf War, faced a similar struggle. Deployed to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as part of a tank crew, he later applied for disability benefits and received an initial 10% rating for PTSD. This was eventually increased to 50%, but when Thornton appealed for a higher rating, his request was denied. The courts reasoned that his evidence did not justify a 70% rating.

In both cases, the Veterans Court of Appeals upheld the Board’s decisions without conducting a thorough benefit-of-the-doubt review. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals concurred, stating that such a review was unnecessary.

Now, Bufkin and Thornton are appealing to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Federal Circuit failed to uphold Congress’s clear intention to prioritize the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. Their attorneys claim that the courts’ interpretations undermine veterans’ rights and weaken the appeals process.

The VA, however, defends its handling of the claims. VA attorneys argue that Bufkin did not provide sufficient evidence to prove his PTSD was service-connected, and Thornton’s 50% rating was already the result of a benefit-of-the-doubt determination. They maintain that the Veterans Court of Appeals is only required to review decisions for errors, not reevaluate the evidence under the benefit-of-the-doubt standard.

Legal experts believe a ruling in favor of Bufkin and Thornton could significantly change how the VA and appeals courts handle disability claims. A decision could force the courts to apply stricter scrutiny to cases involving ambiguous evidence, potentially reversing or altering outcomes for many veterans.

Renee Burbank, litigation director for the National Veterans Legal Services Program, emphasized the importance of this case. “A ruling to overturn the current decisions could strengthen the veterans court’s role in examining evidence and speed up appeals that often drag on for years,” she explained. She also noted that requiring courts to give closer attention to whether evidence is evenly balanced would not place an undue burden on the system.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could also provide a clearer pathway for doctors facing similar challenges with their disability claims. A Disability Claims for Doctors Attorney might play a vital role in ensuring that healthcare professionals who served in the military receive the benefits they deserve under the law.

Several organizations, including Disabled American Veterans and Military-Veterans Advocacy, have filed briefs in support of Bufkin and Thornton. They argue that upholding the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is essential for ensuring fairness in the disability claims process.

Ultimately, this case carries significant implications—not just for veterans like Bufkin and Thornton but for the broader system governing how disability claims are evaluated and resolved. As the Supreme Court weighs the arguments, the decision could bring long-overdue clarity and equity to a process that has left many veterans feeling overlooked and underserved.