Supreme Court Ruling in Bufkin v. McDonough Affects Veterans’ Disability Appeals

Washington, D.C.—On March 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a significant decision in Bufkin v. McDonough, impacting the appeals process for veterans seeking disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The 7-2 decision clarifies the standard of review that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) must apply when considering whether the VA properly applied the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule.

The benefit-of-the-doubt rule, codified in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), mandates that the VA must resolve any “approximate balance of positive and negative evidence” in favor of the veteran. This long-standing principle aims to ensure that veterans receive the benefits they deserve, especially when the evidence regarding their service-connected disabilities is not clear-cut.

The Bufkin v. McDonough case arose from two separate instances in which veterans Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton were denied disability benefits despite presenting evidence that they argued was in “approximate balance.” Both veterans appealed to the Veterans Court, contending that the VA had improperly applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in their cases.

The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Veterans Court should independently determine, when reviewing VA decisions, if the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was correctly applied as a matter of law (subject to a more rigorous “de novo” review) or if the VA’s assessment of whether the evidence is in approximate balance constitutes a factual finding subject to a more deferential “clear error” review.

In a majority opinion penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision, holding that the VA’s determination regarding the approximate balance of evidence is “predominantly factual” and should, therefore, be reviewed by the Veterans Court only for “clear error.” This means that the Veterans Court must defer to the VA’s finding unless it is demonstrably wrong.

The Court reasoned that assessing whether evidence is in approximate balance involves both weighing the evidence and applying the legal standard of “approximate balance.” However, the former aspect – weighing evidence – is inherently a factual determination. Consequently, the entire determination should be reviewed under the “clear error” standard.

Impact on Veterans Appeals:

This ruling is expected to have 4 significant impacts on the appeals process for veterans’ disability claims:

1. Higher Burden of Proof on Appeal: Veterans appealing VA decisions to the Veterans Court will now face a higher bar to successfully challenge the VA’s application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. They must demonstrate that the VA’s finding of no approximate balance was erroneous rather than arguing that the Veterans Court should independently weigh the evidence.
2. Reinforced VA Discretion: The decision reinforces the VA’s discretion in evaluating evidence and determining whether the benefit-of-the-doubt rule should apply. Thus, the Veterans Court will be less likely to overturn the VA’s decisions.
3. Importance of Strong Initial Claims: The ruling underscores the critical importance of submitting comprehensive and compelling evidence at the initial claim stage. Veterans should strive to provide robust medical and factual evidence to support their claims, as it may be more challenging to overturn an unfavorable VA decision on appeal.
4. Dissenting View: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented from the majority opinion. They argued that the application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule involves a legal determination that should be subject to de novo review by the Veterans Court. The dissent expressed concern that the majority’s decision weakens the pro-veteran intent of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule and makes it more difficult for veterans to challenge potentially unfair denials.

Moving Forward:

According to Veterans Disability Appeals Attorney Eric Gang, “The Bufkin v. McDonough ruling will lead to adjustments in how veterans and their advocates approach disability appeals.” Gang continued to say, “There may be a greater emphasis on building a strong evidentiary record from the outset and focusing appellate arguments on demonstrating clear errors in the VA’s factual findings.”

Some agencies can help with the process at no cost to the veteran. Still, sometimes, after all else fails, you have to hire an attorney who is experienced and knowledgeable in the field of veteran’s disability law. This is crucial to make it through this process.

The full implications of this decision will likely unfold as the Veterans Court applies the “clear error” standard in future cases involving the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. However, the immediate impact is a shift towards greater deference to the VA’s evidentiary determinations in veterans’ disability appeals.