What the Bufkin v. McDonough Ruling Means for Veterans Appeals

On March 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a major decision in Bufkin v. McDonough. For veterans dealing with denied disability claims, this ruling could directly affect how your appeal is reviewed and decided.

Bufkin v. McDonough and the Benefit-Of-The-Doubt Rule

In this case, two veterans, Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton, were denied VA disability benefits even though they presented what they believed was strong evidence. Bufkin and Thornton appealed the VA decision. Their main argument? The VA didn’t apply the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule fairly.

If you’ve been through the VA system, you probably know this rule well. It essentially says that if the evidence in a claim is evenly balanced, the VA is supposed to side with the veteran. The benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 U.S.C. § 5107(b)) was designed to make sure the VA system isn’t adversarial and veterans aren’t denied benefits just because the evidence isn’t 100% clear.

The two veterans’ appeal to the Veterans Court ended up in the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that when the VA decides whether evidence is “in approximate balance,” the decision is “factual,” not legal.

Factual Versus Legal Decision Making

A factual decision involves interpreting the facts and evidence of a case. It’s about what actually happened or what the evidence shows.

For example:

• Did a veteran’s symptoms begin during active service?
• Does a medical exam support the claimed condition?
• Is the evidence on both sides in approximate balance?

When something is considered a factual issue, the reviewing court (like the Veterans Court) must be deferential to the original decision-maker (the VA in this case). The court can only overturn it if there is a clear error, meaning the VA made an obvious and significant mistake.

On the other hand, a legal decision involves interpreting or applying the law. It’s about what the rules are or how they should be applied in a given situation.

For example:

• What does the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule mean legally?
• Does the law require a specific kind of evidence?
• Was the correct legal standard used in making the decision?

When something is a legal issue, the reviewing court can take a fresh look (called “de novo” review) and decide for itself whether the law was applied correctly. The court doesn’t have to defer to the VA’s interpretation.

In Bufkin, the Court said deciding whether the evidence is “in approximate balance” is a factual question because it requires weighing the evidence, not just interpreting the law.

Not everyone on the Court agreed. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing that applying the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is a legal question, not just a factual one. They warned that this ruling could dilute the pro-veteran spirit of the law and make it more difficult to correct unfair denials.

In short, the Bukfin decision means that when a veteran appeals a VA decision and claims the benefit-of-the-doubt rule wasn’t applied correctly, the Veterans Court must give deference to the VA’s call. The court can’t just reweigh the evidence from scratch. Instead, the veteran must prove the VA clearly got it wrong—a much tougher standard.

If you’re thinking, “That sounds like a steeper hill to climb,” you’re not wrong. This ruling makes it more important than ever to get solid evidence and legal guidance early in the claims process.

How Does Bufkin Impact Veterans?

The ruling in Bufkin changes the way appeals courts can review VA decisions. Instead of taking a fresh look at the evidence, the Veterans Court must now give the VA’s decision more leeway. This means the VA now has more room to interpret the evidence, making it harder to challenge those decisions on appeal.

If you’re applying for or appealing a VA disability claim, here’s how this ruling could affect you:

• Tougher Appeals: Veterans now have a higher burden when challenging the VA’s decision. It’s not enough to show there might have been an even split in the evidence. Veterans must be able to prove that the VA clearly got it wrong.

• Stronger Claims Up Front: This ruling makes it more important than ever to build a rock-solid case from the beginning. Veterans will need to submit thorough medical records, buddy statements, service records, medical nexus letters, and any other evidence that clearly supports their claim.

• VA Gets More Say: The decision gives more power to the VA when weighing evidence. Courts will be less likely to second-guess the VA’s judgment on whether the benefit-of-the-doubt rule should have applied.

According to Veterans Law Attorney Eric Gang, “The Bufkin v. McDonough ruling will lead to adjustments in how veterans and their advocates approach disability appeals.” The attorney went on 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.”

Now, more than ever, it is crucial to seek expert help early. Whether you’re just filing a claim or you’re already in the appeal stage, having the right evidence in place from the start can make all the difference.

In addition, know your resources. There are veteran service organizations that can assist and do great work. But in complex cases, it takes an experienced VA disability attorney to step in and fight for you.

Bufkin v. McDonough represents a shift, and we’re still awaiting the outcome in future cases. But for now, the takeaway is clear: the VA has more discretion in how it applies the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, and that means veterans need to make their case as strong as possible right from the start.

If you’re facing a denied claim or thinking about an appeal, don’t go it alone. Contact us to find out how we can help you build a winning case. Call 888.878.9350 or Connect Online.