69–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–789 

VETERANS DISABILITY BENEFITS CLAIMS 

MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2008 

JULY 29, 2008.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. FILNER, from the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 5892] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 5892) to amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to modernize the disability benefits 

claims processing system of the Department of Veterans Affairs to 

ensure the accurate and timely delivery of compensation to veterans and their families and survivors, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 20 

Subcommittee Consideration .................................................................................. 25 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 25 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 25 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 25 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 25 

New Budget Authority, Entitlement Authority, and Tax Expenditures ............. 25 

Earmarks and Tax and Tariff Benefits .................................................................. 25 

Committee Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 25 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ................................................................... 26 

Federal Mandates Statement ................................................................................. 29 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 29 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 29 

Applicability to Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 30 

Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation ...................................................... 30 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill as Reported ...................................... 33 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

1Department of Veterans Affairs, FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report, See generally, pp. 265–268. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 5892 was introduced by Representative John J. Hall of New 

York, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs, on April 24, 2008. This legislation, as 

amended, would comprehensively overhaul the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claims processing system to ensure the accurate 

and timely delivery of compensation and pension benefits for veterans, their families, and survivors. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

There are nearly 24 million veterans and more than 2.7 million 

receive disability compensation benefits from the VA. Upon filing 

a claim for disability compensation benefits at VA, veterans and 

their beneficiaries face increased waiting times. As many veterans 

service organizations assert, a ‘‘benefit delayed is a benefit denied.’’

As of July 19, 2008, the number of pending disability compensation claims stood at nearly 630,000, with almost a quarter of these 

pending for longer than six months. In 2007, the VA Regional Offices (VAROs) took in more than 800,000 claims for disability compensation, up from 675,000 in 2006. The number of filed claims is 

likely to increase steadily as Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) veterans return and veterans 

from previous conflicts age. Although the VA’s fiscal year 2009 

budget submission projected receipt of more than 872,000 claims, 

the actual number of claims received in the coming year could easily exceed one million. 

As VA’s inventory of claims increases, its realistic ability to process these claims in a timely fashion under its current system has 

been called into serious question. In 2007, the average claims processing waiting time increased by six days from 177 days in 2006 

to 183 days. According to the VA Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG), VA failed to meet its 2007 performance goals or targets in 

all major compensation and pension rating related actions: compensation and pension rating related actions—target 160 days, actual 183 days (6-day increase); Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC)—target 125 days, actual 132 days (7-day increase); 

non-rating pension actions—target 96 days, actual 104 days (8-day 

increase); burial reimbursements—target 60 days, actual 91 days 

(31-day increase); percent of applications for headstones and markers for the graves of veterans not buried in national cemeteries 

within 20 days—target 70 percent, actual 38 percent. Moreover, the 

Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) consistently missed customer satisfaction targets and the time for seasoned raters to complete ready-to-rate claims (claims that are fully-developed) increased from 127 days to 135 days.1

The Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission (VDBC), established pursuant to Public Law 108–136, issued its report Honoring 

the Call to Duty: Veterans’ Disability Benefits in the 21st Century 

on October 3, 2007. The VDBC found that two-thirds of compensation claims made each year are from veterans previously determined to have a service-connected disability and most are veterans 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

2The VDBC found that while, ‘‘[t]echnology offers opportunity for improvements, but it is unlikely to solve all problems. The Commission believes that increased reliance on best business 

practices and maximum use of information technology should be coupled with a simplified and 

expedited process for well-documented claims to improve timeliness and reduce the backlog.’’ VDBC report at 15 (Executive Summary). 3GAO, High Risk List: An Update, GAO 07–310 (Washington, DC, January 2007). 

of WWII, Korea and Vietnam. It concluded that as this population 

ages, the VBA can expect to see increases in the percentage of 

claims for worsening or chronic conditions. Currently, the average 

age of veterans who are filing claims for disability compensation is 

55. The VDBC also found that in 2006, the large majority of claims 

(81 percent) were reopened claims (claims that were initially denied or the veteran was dissatisfied with the disability rating) and 

approximately 20 percent were original claims. 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (Public Law 110– 161) secured the largest increase in VA funding with a record $4.8 

billion increase in VA discretionary funding above fiscal year 2007 

enacted levels. This increase included additional resources for the 

VA to be able to secure more than 1,300 new VBA employees, in 

addition to the 1,700 full-time employees (FTEs) from recent funding cycles. However, the Committee has heard from some VBA employees that new hires often have no place to work and may be assigned to non-production duties due to space constraints. 

The VA, in its fiscal year 2009 budget request, sought an additional 703 FTEs for the VBA. Although the Committee supports 

hiring additional employees to address the claims backlog, the 

Committee believes that adding them to a broken processing system will not necessarily eliminate the backlog or decrease lengthy 

processing times for veterans filing disability claims. 

Dating as far back as the Bradley Commission Report of 1956, 

VA has been awash in informed recommendations on how to improve its claims processing system. Yet, despite the benefit of numerous well-informed and detailed reports, the Committee finds 

that VA leadership has consistently failed to implement most of the 

stated recommendations for reform and to develop its own strategic 

plan with proper forecasting and accountability. 

The VDBC urged the VA to simplify and expedite the processing 

of disability claims. The President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors (Dole-Shalala Commission) report, while lacking specifics on how to carry out the reinvention, 

called for revamping of VA’s entire claims processing system. The 

Committee concluded, based on these and an innumerable number 

of other reports, as well as its own analysis and oversight, that the 

VA’s disability claims processing system is heavily paper-based, relies on WWII-era processing and disability paradigms, is fraught 

with inefficiencies and is in need of 21st Century improvements.2

The Committee believes that the linchpin to problems in claims 

processing begins with the failure to properly develop and adjudicate original claims at the VARO level within the VBA. 

Moreover, as it has been every year since 2003, modernizing the 

VA’s disability program again was placed on the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) high-risk list for 2007.3 Finding that 

the current system has lagged behind economic and social changes, 

the GAO stated that VA should take a lead role in seeking the regulatory and legislative solutions needed to transform its programs 

so that they are aligned with the current state of science, medicine, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

4See, generally, VA Claims Processing Taskforce, Report to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, October 2001. 5 Christensen, E. McMahon, Et. Al. Final Report for the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission: Survey Results and Selected Topics. CRM D0016570.A2/Final. Center for Naval Analyses, 

Alexandria, VA: August 2007. pp. 194–195. 

technology, and labor market conditions. Due to continued variation experienced in the decisions made at the field level offices, 

the GAO recommended a comprehensive review of the structure 

and the division of labor in the VAROs. The Committee concurs in 

these findings. 

The production challenges VA faces are not new problems for the 

VBA and there are several reasons for the failures of VA’s claims 

processing system that the Committee’s oversight has uncovered or 

reemphasized which led to the development of H.R. 5892.4 While 

there may have been a few circumstances at play beyond VA’s control (e.g., the OEF/OIF war efforts and influx of returning veterans), the Committee remains perplexed at the VA’s inability to 

vigorously address managerial and systematic problems in the 

claims processing system. 

H.R. 5892 would comprehensively modernize the VBA claims 

processing system and arm it with the up-to-date tools and paradigms it needs to process claims using integrated information technology and platforms, while improving the accountability, timeliness, and quality of adjudicated claims. Additionally, it would enhance the annual reporting requirements of the United States 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as well as provide the Court 

with more discretion to decide all issues raised on appeal by appellate veterans. The Committee believes that H.R. 5892 will help VA 

update its claims processing system so that the VBA will become 

a 21st century, world-class entity that reflects the selfless sacrifices 

of those it serves—our veterans, their families, and survivors. 

VA SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES

Veterans’ disabilities are evaluated in accordance with the VA 

Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The VASRD was originally created in 1917 to address the needs of returning World War 

I veterans and avoid the economic devastation that the United 

States faced after the Civil War. The VASRD was last comprehensively revised in 1945, although modifications have been made to 

certain sections. Overall, the VASRD contains many outdated and 

archaic criteria and lacks more commonly accepted medical practices and procedures. Studies conducted in 2007 by the Institute of 

Medicine (IOM), entitled PTSD Compensation and Military Service 

and A 21st Century System for Evaluating Veterans for Disability 

Benefits, and the Center for Naval Analyses Corporation (CNAC) 

2007, found it to be an inadequate instrument for compensating 

disabilities for the average impairments of earning capacity, especially in the areas of mental health, unemployability, and issues affecting younger severely injured veterans.5

The IOM further recommended the VASRD be revised using 

more modern medical concepts in order to interrelate with other 

commonly used codes or guides, such as the International Classification of Diseases published by the World Health Organization; 

the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual published by the American 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
5 

Psychiatric Association, or the Guides to Evaluating Permanent 

Impairment published by the American Medical Association. 

This provision of H.R. 5892, derived in part from the Veterans 

Quality of Life Study Act of 2007, H.R. 4084, introduced by the 

Honorable John J. Hall of New York on November 6, 2007, would 

require the Secretary to conduct a study on adjusting the VASRD 

to take into account the loss of quality of life and loss of earnings 

capacity as recommended by the IOM. VA also would need to submit a plan and timeline to Congress for the revision of the VASRD 

using current medical and technological concepts, practices, and 

standards. An implementation plan and biannual progress reports 

would be due to Congress not later than three years after enactment. Additionally, this provision requires the establishment of an 

18-member Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation to consist of leading experts who will guide the Secretary on revising and 

readjusting the VASRD in the future. 

Current law requires that VA compensate service-disabled veterans for loss of potential earnings. However, the aforementioned 

IOM and CNAC reports indicate that service-connected disabled 

veterans report lower quality of life than the average population. 

Currently, it is not clear whether the VA standard addresses the 

non-work-related effects of permanent physical and mental combatrelated injuries, although special monthly compensation awards are 

currently made for veterans who qualify. 

Following extensive research, the VDBC, the IOM, and the DoleShalala Commission all concluded that VA should compensate disabled veterans for their loss of ability to function in activities of 

daily life and, if possible, for the loss of quality of life. These entities further recommended that Congress direct VA to revise the 

VASRD to account for these additional effects of impairment. Answering the call of these recommendations, H.R. 5892 would require VA to commission a study to determine the appropriate level 

and duration of benefits that would compensate veterans for the 

full impact of their service-connected disability. VA policy officials 

informed the Committee that a study consistent with the requirement in H.R. 5892 is currently ongoing. It is the intention of the 

Committee that this provision inform VA’s implementation of this 

study’s findings. 

EMPLOYEE WORK CREDIT SYSTEM OF THE VBA

The Committee finds that VBA’s current work credit system does 

not take into account the correct or incorrect outcome of the claim, 

but rather focuses on the number of tasks completed by the individual claims rating personnel leading, ultimately, to very little individual accountability within the VBA. 

Currently, each claim is given an ‘‘end product code,’’ which estimates the amount of time it will take for an employee to complete 

their assigned tasks for each claim. After completing this task, the 

employee receives credit for their work. The time included in the 

product code for each task varies by difficulty of the task that was 

completed. This means that a member of the Post-Determination 

team may only work on three claims a day because of the level of 

difficulty while a member of the triage team may complete ten 

claims in a day. These end product codes are also linked to the difficulty level of the claims adjudicated. For example, the employee 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 

(and ultimately the VARO) receives more credit if they complete an 

original compensation claim vs. an original pension claim. Even 

though these work credits and end product codes are not supposed 

to serve as part of the employee’s, and VARO’s, performance standards it has been shown that this is one of the first statistics VBA 

examines when it evaluates performance. 

While a seemingly sound system in theory, The American Legion, 

National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) and many 

other veterans service organizations have informed the Committee 

repeatedly during hearings conducted during the 110th Congress, 

that the practical effects of the current system places a dangerous 

emphasis on quantity over quality where the accuracy of adjudicated claims suffers as a result. Since employees receive credit 

for the work they do, regardless of whether they did the work correctly, there is less of an incentive for any employee to do the work 

correctly the first time. For instance, when an employee makes a 

mistake where a decision is overruled by the Decision Review Officer (DRO), Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) or the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), there is little to no counseling 

with that individual employee to remediate the mistake to prevent 

future errors. Instead, when enough errors of a certain type have 

been made by a VARO, a remediation team comes in and trains the 

whole team on these deficiencies even if this training is only needed by a few members of the team. 

Several witnesses have suggested that Congress direct VA to 

change this current system to create one where a VARO cannot receive credit for its work until one year after the adjudication of a 

claim occurs. This timeframe coincides with the statutory limit on 

how long a veteran can take to file an appeal with the BVA. The 

rationale is that lengthening the timeframe to receive credit would 

force the VARO to take more time examining the quality of their 

decisions in the first instance. H.R. 5892 does not capture this recommendation, but the Committee views it as a viable alternative 

for ensuring better accountability. 

Moreover, the Committee believes that there is no reason why 

the VBA could not continue to use its current work credit system 

while the new system is being implemented. With increasing BVA 

and CAVC dockets, it is critically important that VA’s 57 VAROs 

adjudicate claims correctly the first time. Improving VBA’s work 

credit system is one way to do that. The Committee points out that 

the language of H.R. 5892 is not intended to preclude VA from 

using its current end product coding system for identifying and distinguishing workload. 

H.R. 5892 would require the Secretary to conduct a study of the 

VBA’s work credit system focusing on improving the quality, performance, accuracy of claims, and the enhanced use of information 

technology. VA would have to report to Congress on how it plans 

to implement a new system for measuring work production within 

180 days of enactment. The legislation would require suspension of 

the current work credit system if VA fails to implement a new system for measuring work production of VBA employees. 

VA WORK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

In 2002, VA shifted its claims processing system from a case 

management model, where one employee was responsible for comVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:08 Jul 31, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR789.XXX HR789

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
7 

pletion of a claims file, to the Claims Process Improvement (CPI) 

model which emphasizes specialization of processing. According to 

VA, the CPI model allows for specialization of processing through 

the use of six specialized teams. Four of these teams address specific cycles in claims processing: triage, pre-determination, rating, 

and post-determination. Two additional teams, public contact and 

appeals, address important areas related to operations. VA reasoned it would be easier to spot process or flow disruptions by shifting from an individual focus to a process focus. Additionally, training and development could be specific and focused and tools to 

monitor inventory would be more effective. However, the Committee concludes that to date, none of these projected efficiencies 

have been realized for VA’s current claims processing system after 

adoption of the CPI. 

The Committee finds that what the CPI model means to a veteran filing a claim is that, at the very least, six VBA employees 

handle the claim, none of whom are held accountable for any of the 

errors it may contain. If the case is appealed or remanded, it does 

not seem as if this error reverts back to the actual employee who 

committed the error for corrective action. When there is no accountability or consequence for poor quality, then employees may 

not have an incentive to focus the work product on quality outputs. 

Between 2000 and 2007, the appeals rate on disability determinations has more than doubled to approximately 12 percent. According to VA, the current remand rate (cases sent back to VARO 

for further development) is approximately 57 percent. More importantly, both the backlog and processing times have increased dramatically since implementation of the CPI model in 2002 and quality and accuracy seem to have been dramatically sacrificed. This 

poor performance trend seems likely to continue for the foreseeable 

future and the Committee finds that VA needs to shift its claims 

processing system from this extremely unsuccessful paradigm. 

During a Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial 

Affairs hearing concerning the VA claims backlog on February 14, 

2008, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) 

stated that it was ‘‘concerned that the claims process improvement 

pendulum had swung too far turning the claims process into an assembly line’’ with accountability being hard to pinpoint. AFGE further stated that ‘‘[t]here are many benefits when employees work 

the entire claim from the application to the appeal[.] Our members 

really feel the loss of weekly case management meetings that used 

to give them the opportunity to discuss challenging claims, changes 

in the laws and best practices.’’

H.R. 5892 would require the Secretary to conduct a study and report on the work management system of the VBA. The Committee 

finds that the current CPI model does not focus on accuracy and 

is overly geared towards production and output without regard to 

quality or accountability. 

While this provision is not intended to compel VA to return to 

its pre-CPI claims processing model, the Committee does find that 

its current system fails to provide adequate training for raters, 

timely notification of changes in law, or opportunities to standardize best practices throughout all of its regional offices. As such, 

these lessons from the past should be used to inform VA’s efforts 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
8 

6 According to the VDBC and based on Committee assessments, the most time-consuming part 

of claims processing is the time it takes to begin development until the time the development 

has been received and the claim is referred to the rating board for a decision. When the average 

processing time was 181 days, the VDBC estimated that the development portion of the claims 

process takes approximately 111 days. Including the other 3–4 steps in the CPI Model, which 

all disability claims are subjected, it seems nearly impossible for VA to ever meet its current 

claims processing target of 145 days. 7 Institute for Defense Analyses, Analysis of Differences in VA Disability Compensation, August 2007, p. 39. 

to improve the accountability and accuracy of its current claims 

processing paradigm. 

The Committee believes that overall, VA needs to focus on making its disability claims processing system more veteran-focused 

and much less process-focused. CPI, as currently implemented, 

seems antithetical to meeting this need. H.R. 5892 would encourage VA to reevaluate and revise its current failed claims processing 

model.6

CERTIFICATION AND TRAINING OF EMPLOYEES OF VETERANS BENEFITS

ADMINISTRATION RESPONSIBLE FOR PROCESSING CLAIMS

The training program for VBA employees seems to still present 

challenges for VA. The Committee applauds recent efforts by the 

VBA to require at least 80 hours of training for each employee and 

to centralize the training program at its National Training Academy in Baltimore. However, gaps in training and inconsistencies 

between the VAROs clearly persist. As pointed out by the Institute 

for Defense Analyses (IDA) in its study on VARO variances, points 

on which the Committee concurs, the VBA needs to standardize initial and ongoing training for rating specialists which includes implementing its Training and Performance Support System (TPSS), 

Rating Veteran Service Representative (RVSR) certification, and 

advanced development training for complex claims (like PTSD).7

The VBA informed the Committee that it plans to reinstate its 

RVSR testing certification which it had suspended for over two 

years due to poor performance. However, disputes continue between management and labor on test contents. 

The Committee believes that certification testing is an appropriate means to measure an employee’s qualifications and skills 

and should be a part of the VA’s human resources evaluation system. 

The Systematic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) is the VBA’s 

national program for measuring compensation and pension claims 

processing accuracy. The STAR includes evaluation of work in 

three areas: claims that usually require a rating decision, claims 

that generally do not require a rating decision, and fiduciary work. 

Audit style case reviews are conducted after completion of all required processing actions on a claim. The review is outcome-based 

and includes all elements of processing the particular claim. STAR 

accuracy review results are generated for all 57 VAROs and are included in both the station and VARO Director’s annual performance measures, but not an individual employee’s performance 

measures. 

The STAR review takes a sample size of ten cases requiring a 

rating decision, ten cases that do not require a rating decision, and 

three to ten cases of fiduciary work. The samples are reviewed 

monthly at each of VBA’s 57 VAROs. These numbers are somewhat 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
9 

8 Ibid, p. 41. 9Department of Veterans Affairs, FY 2007 Performance and Accountability Report, p. 266. 

different for smaller and larger stations. This means that roughly 

19,000 claims or 2.4 percent are reviewed by STAR each year. 

These cases are randomly selected for each area based on end 

product codes. When completing a review, raters use a special 

checklist that checks for everything from development to dates and 

completion of duty to assist letters. An answer of ‘‘No’’ to any of the 

questions on the checklist relating to the processing of the issue 

(end product) action under review will result in the case being classified as ‘‘in error.’’ The last section of the rating, authorization and 

fiduciary checklists, contains an area for administrative questions 

that are not related to the accuracy of claims processing: an answer 

of ‘‘No’’ for one of these questions will not indicate error in the case. 

It is unclear what the VBA actually does with STAR reviews 

once they are completed. If a claim is found to be in error, a readjudication is requested and is supposed to be completed by VARO 

staff. It is uncertain what additional training is conducted or 

whether or not there is any level of accountability for an individual 

VARO when mistakes are made. 

In an August 2007 report, the IDA recommended that VA increase oversight and review rating decisions by increasing the 

STAR’s staffing and sample size, by participation of STAR staff in 

site visits, and by using STAR results to clarify procedures and 

focus training activities and enhancements to the STAR database. 

Additionally, the report called for VA to improve and expand data 

capture and retention (a byproduct of transition from the legacy to 

its corporate system, VETSNET) with more robust data collection 

and better support for information management and analysis.8

As of July 2008, there were more than 162,000 appeals currently 

pending in VAROs and the VBA’s Appeals Management Center, including cases requiring processing prior to transfer to the BVA and 

cases remanded to the VBA offices by the BVA or the CAVC. Also, 

there are nearly 40,000 additional appeals now pending at the 

BVA. By most accounts, this increase is due to a sharp increase in 

denials by the VBA and poorly adjudicated claims at the VARO in 

the first instance. 

This ‘‘hamster wheel’’ appeal cycle adds years to the processing 

time for a veteran’s claim and the OIG found that ‘‘all of these 

processes—initial decisions by VBA, pre-appellate reviews in VA 

regional offices, actions by VBA’s Appeals Management Center, 

consideration at BVA, and ultimately consideration by the CAVC—

present VA with a formidable challenge in terms of timeliness in 

providing monetary benefits to veterans.’’ 9 The Committee believes 

the VBA should devote significant resources to addressing this 

growing crisis and continue to improve its training and accountability to reduce the avoidable remand rate. 

The Committee is pleased that the VBA indicated in the VA’s fiscal year 2009 budget submission that it plans to increase its STAR 

staff by approximately12 FTEs and insists that the STAR accuracy 

rating has improved since fiscal year 2004 to about 88 percent (although its stated goal is 98 percent). The Committee believes the 

VBA should increase the number of cases subject to STAR Review 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
10 

10 Institute for Defense Analyses, Analysis of Differences in VA Disability Compensation, August 2007, p. 37. 

and develop a system of accountability for improperly processed 

claims. 

Lastly, there have been on-going problems with VA’s ability to 

recruit and retain qualified rating officials and managers. In general, it takes two to three years to train a rater who will stay on 

the job for an average of five years. Senior employees are at retirement age and many are expected to leave the VA in the near future 

which will create a drain on the claims processing system. VA must 

ensure that it both develops the proper tools to train new employees and adopts retention policies that encourage employee stability 

at its regional offices where benefits claims are processed. 

H.R. 5892 would require VA to redevelop this certification exam 

to test both appropriate VBA employees and managers and to include appropriate input from interested stakeholders in its development. It would also require the Secretary to contract with an outside entity to conduct an evaluation of VBA’s training and quality 

assurance programs within 180 days of enactment. 

ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM

In a statement for the record presented to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs in December 2005, the GAO highlighted the lack of 

consistency and accuracy at VA’s 57 VAROs. It has been widely reported that Regional Directors often make autonomous decisions 

regarding ratings, training, resource allocations, and production 

goals with very little oversight by the VA’s Central Office. This persistent lack of accountability partially explains the great variances 

in disability compensation awards between the 57 VAROs. 

These findings were also underscored in the IDA report which 

found that ‘‘in practice, regional offices are largely independent 

. . . and the quality assurance program is insufficient to promote 

consistency across regional offices.’’ 10 The report came about as the 

result of an in-depth analysis of variances among VAROS that was 

prompted by a series of articles in the Chicago Sun Times which 

revealed that Illinois veterans receive less disability compensation 

than other veterans around the country. The range of compensation 

in 2003 for veterans with similar disabilities was $6,802 in Illinois 

to $10,852 in New Mexico. In 2005, the variance was $7,500 to 

$12,500. 

This variability in ratings and awards is not a new problem for 

VA. In fact, the IDA found that historically the relative variability 

across states and VAROs has existed at or near the current level 

over the past 35 years. The Committee believes VA should focus on 

instituting the reforms set forth in the IDA’s Report to promote 

uniformity in training and better accountability across its 57 

VAROs. 

Currently, VA does not review a statistically valid sample of a 

veteran’s claim within its STAR program. Moreover, the STAR 

analysis is usually conducted in-house by VBA managers who may 

be reluctant to report real quality concerns. 

H.R. 5892 would require the Secretary to contract for an annual 

quality assurance assessment that measures a statistically valid 

sample of VBA employees and their work product for accuracy, conVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:46 Jul 31, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR789.XXX HR789

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
11 

11 Harris, Daniel, Findings from Raters and VSO Surveys. CRM D0015934.A2/Final. Center 

for Naval Analyses Corporation for the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission. Alexandria, 

VA: May 2007. p. 134. 

sistency, and reliability, and to track trends. H.R. 5892 contains 

language derived from H.R. 5709, a measure introduced by the 

Honorable Zachary Space of Ohio, on April 3, 2008, that would also 

require the VA to standardize its data collection and capture more 

meaningful data for comparative analysis. The Committee believes 

that expanding this collection to include race, sex, and other pertinent demographic information would also prove useful for comparative and oversight purposes. Furthermore, the information gathered during an objective quality assessment would be used to inform the development of training and certification goals under section 105 of the bill. 

EMPLOYING MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS TO ASSIST EMPLOYEES OF

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

A study conducted by the CNAC found that, among VBA raters, 

more than 75 percent of rating personnel indicated they would benefit from having an expert health professional available to answer 

medical questions and to assist in their understanding of a disease 

or progression of injuries. Rating personnel receive medically-informed training in order to decide and adjudicate claims, but the 

overwhelming majority do not possess medical backgrounds, education, or experience. Having on-hand access to medical professionals would likely improve rating accuracy and consistency.11

H.R. 5892 would require the Secretary within 90 days of enactment to conduct a study to evaluate the use of medical professionals as a reference resource to assist its personnel responsible 

for processing and adjudicating claims. This assistance would be in 

addition to any assistance provided by medical professionals of the 

Veterans Health Administration and would also include medical 

professionals who are not physicians. 

The Committee emphasizes the point that medical professionals 

are intended to serve as medical reference resources only; much as 

a medical reference guide might prove useful in informing decisions 

of rating personnel. None of the information provided by these 

medical professionals is to be used as a source to rate any disability or evaluate any claim. H.R. 5892 expressly forbids the use 

of medical professionals for these purposes. The Secretary would be 

required to provide a report to Congress within 180 days of enactment on its findings and conclusion. If the Secretary hires medical 

professionals pursuant to this Act, the Secretary must ensure that 

all rating specialists employed by its 57 VAROs have access to 

these medical professionals for reference purposes. 

REVIEW AND ENHANCEMENT OF USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

AT VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

According to VA, 12 percent of the more than 800,000 claims 

filed are appealed. The remand rate as of 2007 is more than 56 

percent and variances across the VAROs have generated investigations by the OIG (Review of State Variances in VA Disability Compensation Payments) and a study by the Institute for Defense Analyses previously mentioned. High staff turnover, improper training, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
12 

12GAO, Long-Standing Claims Processing Challenges Persist. GAO–07–512T, p. 3. 13 Ibid, p. 6. 14 Information discussed during a VBA briefing to staff of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

in January 2007, VA testimony before the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Subcommittee on 

Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs hearing on The Use of Artificial Intelligence in the 

VA’s Claims Processing System, January 29, 2008. 

lack of resources, and lost, missing, and unassociated paper records 

have waylaid the system. Increased use of information technology, 

such as rules-based systems decision support software and fully relational databases, will promote three desired goals: timeliness, 

consistency, and accuracy. 

VBA is in the process of reorganizing its Information Technology 

(IT) management and converting its legacy Benefits Delivery Network (BDN) system to the VETSNET platform. VETSNET is a 

group of applications that can perform payment, accounting, and 

workflow management functions. According to VA, as of January 

2008, more than 850,000 veterans were receiving their benefits 

payment via VETSNET. The claims development and rating decision support component of VETSNET is fully functional at all the 

VAROs and the VAROs are incorporating imaging and electronic 

records into the disability compensation claims process. 

Despite these achievements, the GAO noted in March 2007, ‘‘VA 

continues to experience significant service delivery challenges including lengthy processing times, and inaccurate and inconsistent 

decisions.’’ 12 GAO further concluded, ‘‘VA lacks a consistent method for ensuring consistency of decision making within VA as a 

whole.’’ 13

VETSNET (unlike BDN) would allow for the use of decision-support and expert system applications, but these have not yet been 

integrated with BDN. These tools are available today and the Committee expects the VA to complete VETSNET and its enhancements on a priority basis. VA indicated during testimony before the 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs on 

January 29, 2008, that it intends to eventually process claims in 

an entirely electronic environment and would be employing a lead 

system integrator. 

The Committee is concerned that VA has only recently, over the 

past year, begun development of a strategic plan for systematically 

processing claims using an integrated electronic platform.14 The 

Committee received the results of the IBM study commissioned by 

VA in March 2008 to fully assess its claims processing system. The 

results were not surprising to the Committee and reiterated findings outlined in prior studies. Moreover, at least three private entities have apprised the Committee and VA of rules-based programs 

that will help process veterans’ claims more efficiently and effectively, yet the VBA seems incapable of harnessing the value of 

these developments or other IT developments to improve its dysfunctional and outmoded claims processing system. The Committee 

firmly concludes that VA leadership should work on developing an 

internal, system-wide strategic plan in order to improve its claims 

processing outcomes, with appropriate organizational and individual accountability that employs rules-based IT platforms and 

decision-support software. 

H.R. 5892 would require the Secretary to develop a plan to implement comprehensive information technology upgrades, including 

web portals, rule-based expert systems, and decision support softVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:08 Jul 31, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR789.XXX HR789

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
13 

15The most prevalent conditions that are service-connected by VA are auditory with almost 

840,000 veterans receiving compensation followed by musculoskeletal and arthritis. PTSD is the 

sixth most common condition with 269,399 service connected veterans. In 2006, the Veterans 

Health Administration (VHA) treated 345,713 veterans with PTSD, which represented an increase of 27,099 over 2005 and included 34,000 veterans who served after October 7, 2001. In 

June 2007, the Army reported an increase in suicide rates among its troops. 

ware within one year to enhance its claims processing capabilities 

and to rate claims within the time period VA identifies in its Annual Performance Report to Congress. The technology exists for VA 

to be able to assist its rating personnel in effectively utilizing key 

word classifiers, scanning and indexing data, and employing other 

information architecture platforms and software. Electronic health 

records and examination templates currently used by the Veterans 

Health Administration (VHA), and electronically transferred Department of Defense records, along with an online application system could be integrated to improve the quality and timeliness of 

claims adjudication. The Committee believes that based on current 

technology, VA should be able to manage a claim from the point 

of application to the payment of compensation in an integrated 

electronic environment. Currently, it falls far short of this goal. 

CLARIFICATION OF ‘‘ENGAGED IN COMBAT WITH THE ENEMY’’

H.R. 5892 would amend section 1154(b) of title 38, United States 

Code, to ease the weighty evidentiary burdens VA imposes on combat veterans who may not have unit records or other documentation of exposure to stressful events, but whose injuries are consistent with the duties and hardships of their service and hence 

should be service-connected. This usually arises in the instance 

where a servicemember is separated from the assigned unit during 

the time a traumatic event occurs (for instance when a military police officer, a truck driver in a convoy, or other support personnel 

comes under attack while assigned temporarily to another unit). 

These evidentiary hurdles become even more critical for conditions such as PTSD where the injury to the mind is not visible and 

the documentation, due to the unpredictable enemy fire lines and 

nature of battle, as well as frequent separation from units, may not 

exist. The Committee finds that these veterans are not the outliers 

and too many are improperly being denied service-connected benefits based on VA’s overly stringent interpretation of the presumption of exposure clearly outlined in section 1154(b) of title 38, 

United States Code. While the provision in H.R. 5892 is not intended to solely ease the evidence hurdles that veterans suffering 

from PTSD face when trying to prove service-connection for exposure to stressors, this may be its practical effect.15

Incidences of PTSD are higher than anticipated in the current 

OEF/OIF conflicts and this number will likely only grow due to 

lengthy combat deployments. A recent RAND study concluded that 

approximately 18.5 percent of OEF/OIF veterans have PTSD or depression, which equates to approximately 300,000 veterans; only 53 

percent sought some type of treatment partly due to the stigma 

surrounding mental health treatment. PTSD is not unique to OEF/ 

OIF veterans. We know that many veterans from other wars were 

also afflicted, many of whom, according to testimony presented to 

the Committee, often are undiagnosed or have been denied benefits. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
14 

As noted, PTSD is the sixth most common service-connected condition with 269,399 veterans receiving benefits in fiscal year 2006. 

It is estimated that the societal costs (loss of productivity, treatment, suicide) of PTSD is $6.2 billion dollars. If all veterans and 

servicemembers who needed PTSD care were treated, it could save 

as much as $1.7 billion per year in societal costs and would cost 

only approximately $1,063 per veteran according to the RAND 

study. Additionally, the CNAC found that those with mental disabilities, especially veterans with PTSD and who were also unemployable were below economic parity when compared to other disabled peers. 

Additionally, recent reports discussed during full Committee 

hearings indicate that the true number of veteran suicides could be 

as high as 1,000 per month, twice as high as for the general population. 

The Committee finds that the evidentiary requirements to prove 

‘‘engaged in combat with the enemy’’ found in VA’s procedural 

manuals, the M–21–1s, are unrealistic and inconsistent with corresponding statute and regulations. As the Disabled American Veterans pointed out in testimony before the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs hearing on the draft legislation of H.R 5892 conducted on April 10, 2008, ‘‘[n]either the statute or regulation requires validation by official military records of 

an in-service combat stressor . . . [t]hese internal instructions defy 

incredible supporting evidence that an in-service stressor occurred 

as evidence that specifically documents personal participation in 

the event[.]’’ The Committee also concurs with the Veterans of Foreign Wars’ assessment, highlighted during this hearing, that the 

presumption afforded under Section 1154(b) for exposure to 

stressors should not require a combat medal to prove service-connection for PTSD or any other condition. 

The Committee concludes that VA frustrates Congress’ intent 

when the VA applies additional and unauthorized requirements 

contained in its internal M–21–1 manuals to determine eligibility 

for presumptions this provision of law is intended to afford combat 

veterans. H.R. 5892 would clarify the meaning of ‘‘engaged in combat with the enemy,’’ which the Committee believes is already explicitly defined both in statute and in regulations in order to ensure more proper grants of presumption of service-connection to 

those veterans who also served in a theater of combat operations 

during a period of war or in combat against a hostile force during 

a period of hostilities. 

EXPEDITED TREATMENT OF FULLY DEVELOPED CLAIMS AND REQUIREMENT FOR CHECKLIST TO BE PROVIDED TO INDIVIDUALS SUBMITTING INCOMPLETE CLAIMS

Pursuant to section 5103 of title 38, United States Code, VA 

must fulfill its duty to assist by providing the veteran with appropriate records and exams, and advising of incomplete applications 

and necessary evidence needed to process the claim. This also usually includes a medical exam, but not necessarily. The Veterans 

Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) (Public Law 106–475) 

changed the burden of claim development from the veteran to VA. 

Prior to passage of VCAA, the veteran had the burden of proof in 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
15 

producing the evidence necessary to establish the cause and extent 

of the disability, usually medical evidence. 

VA contends that the implementation of VCAA notice requirements has significantly contributed to the time it takes to process 

disability claims. Based on VA’s interpretation of notice requirements under VCAA, the processing timeline is extended by 90 days 

minimum (60 days after receipt of claims and an additional 30 if 

no response). Nonetheless, as recommended by the VDBC, the 

Committee supports efforts to further streamline the VCAA notice 

by possible implementation of an informed consent form when the 

claim has been fully developed and the veteran is satisfied with the 

evidence submitted before the 60–90 day window. This would likely 

allow well-developed claims to be adjudicated upon receipt, decreasing processing timeframes. 

Furthermore, the Committee finds that it is essential that VA develop a detailed checklist to include with its VCAA letters that it 

sends to veterans. The Committee is absolutely confounded by VA’s 

resistance and reluctance to make this move peremptorily. VA complains of the additional requirements that subsequent Court decisions have mandated. However, the Committee believes that VA 

has failed to embrace the spirit of the VCAA by not providing veterans with useful information to assist in their claims for benefits. 

In fact, during a Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs hearing conducted on April 10, 2008, William P. 

Greene, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims, stated in response to a question posed by Chairman John 

J. Hall: ‘‘In 2000, I thought the message was clear that all VA had 

to do was do a checklist and run down and make sure the veteran 

understood what it was that they had to present. And that is the 

message that the court has been trying to convey over the last 

seven years and the Federal Circuit.’’ The Committee wholeheartedly concurs in the CAVC Chief Judge Greene’s conclusion. 

Allowing a veteran to state that a claim is ready to rate should 

reduce the amount of time it takes VA to adjudicate the claim since 

it will not have to wait the mandatory 60 days and potentially the 

additional 30 days for veterans to otherwise respond. Additionally, 

over the course of the development of this legislation, VA, with 

input from the House and Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs, 

and in response to years of complaints from veterans and other 

stakeholders, voluntarily shortened the VCAA letters, simplified its 

verbiage, and made the waiver a more prominent part of the VCAA 

letter. The Committee commends VA for these efforts and encourages it to further embrace the goal of VCAA of better informing 

and assisting veterans with evidence and information needed to 

fairly adjudicate their claims. 

H.R. 5892 would require the Secretary to set a policy that would 

allow veterans to submit claims and declare them fully developed 

and ‘‘ready to rate’’ at the time of submission and receive a rating 

within 90 days. This section would also amend VA’s duty to notify 

and require the creation of a detailed checklist for claims for specific requests of additional evidence. VA has certain duties to assist 

the veteran in developing the claim. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
16 

ASSIGNMENT OF PARTIAL RATINGS

According to VA, in a hearing before the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs on February 14, 2008, and 

in subsequent meetings with staff, it currently possesses the ability 

to issue partial ratings, although this authority is not expressly 

stated in statute. The Committee presumes VA believes it possesses this authority from section 501 of title 38, United States 

Code. H.R. 5892, also informed by provisions of H.R. 1490, introduced by the Honorable Joe Donnelly of Indiana on March 13, 

2007, would expressly grant VA that authority and require VA to 

issue a partial rating in the instances where a veteran has sustained severe injuries (50 percent or above) and very serve injuries 

(100 percent) that can be promptly rated, while deferring other conditions that may not. VA and the Department of Defense have defined these conditions, and they include limb amputations, paralysis, TBI, severe burns, blindness, deafness, along with other radical injuries. Adoption of this section would help further ensure 

that those veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are not 

asked to sacrifice their family’s financial stability and well-being 

while recuperating from significant injuries. There have been too 

many cases of severely injured veterans with such injuries as amputations or paralysis that wait months or years for VA to adjudicate their complete claim as opposed to granting a rating for the 

parts of the claim that are indisputable and obviously attributable 

to military service. 

The Committee also further clarified the language in this provision so that VA can rate the indisputable injuries based solely on 

the Department of Defense medical records, which would be extensive for these categories of injuries. This provision is intended to 

force VA to provide benefits to the nation’s more severely disabled 

veterans without unnecessary delay while allowing it to retain the 

discretion of whether a Compensation and Pension exam is necessary. As presented in testimony in numerous hearings before the 

Committee during the 110th Congress, these processing delays 

cause veterans unnecessary emotional stress, financial burdens, 

and more often than not leave families in crisis. 

H.R. 5892 would in no way affect VA’s ability to render a permanent rating for any claimed conditions and would not interfere with 

the processing of a veteran’s claim, a finding consistent with staff 

discussions with VA’s policy experts. Nor would it impede a veteran 

from being granted special monthly compensation, aid and attendance, housing or auto grants, clothing allowances, or vocational rehabilitation—in fact it would likely expedite the availability of 

those benefits since they are contingent upon a grant of serviceconnection. 

The Committee points out that a partial rating is different from 

a temporary rating, as a temporary rating is usually only assigned 

when a veteran experiences a prolonged hospitalization. A partial 

rating is also different from a pre-stabilization rating, in that the 

latter is usually assigned only to veterans that have conditions that 

are still undergoing treatment. These distinctions were made to 

Committee staff by VA policy officials. A partial rating is different 

from both the temporary or pre-stabilization rating, in that the ratVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:08 Jul 31, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR789.XXX HR789

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
17 

ing is permanent but can be amended when other deferred conditions have evidence to warrant further adjudication. 

H.R. 5892 would simply require VA to act more promptly for 

claims presenting undisputed severe and very severe injuries and 

in turn provide compensation more quickly where the service-connection link is indisputable. Whereas this provision uses the same 

scale for the partial rating as that outlined in the regulations for 

the pre-stabilization ratings, mostly for ease of administration purposes, its application is different and should not be confused. The 

Committee informs that this provision should be implemented by 

VA in a manner that provides the best outcome for the impacted 

veteran. 

TREATMENT OF CLAIMS UPON DEATH OF A CLAIMANT

The provision in H.R. 5892 addressing the treatment of claims 

upon the death of a claimant is derived from H.R. 4084, introduced 

by Representative Honorable John J. Hall of New York on November 6, 2007, and H.R. 3047, introduced by Representative Doug 

Lamborn on July 16, 2007, which provide that in the event of the 

death of a veteran with a pending disability claim, an eligible dependent as identified under section 5121(a)(2) of title 38, United 

States Code, would be authorized to substitute for the deceased 

claimant at the point the claim had proceeded rather than being 

forced to re-file and restart the claim or appeal. This provision also 

would allow an eligible survivor to submit additional evidence for 

up to one year after the death of a veteran. 

During a hearing conducted by the Subcommittee on Disability 

Assistance and Memorial Affairs on April 24, 2007, entitled, ‘‘Helping Those Left Behind: Are We Doing Enough for the Parents, 

Spouses and Children of Veterans?’’, the NVLSP apprised the Committee of the many instances where veterans die while awaiting 

resolution of a claim pending before the VARO, BVA, CAVC, or 

other reviewing court. This is due primarily to the fact that upon 

their deaths, survivors who are eligible to pursue a claim for accrued benefits are unable to continue that claim from the point it 

had progressed and essentially must restart the claim ‘‘at the back 

of the line.’’ Additionally, upon re-filing a claim for benefits, survivors also are currently prohibited from submitting any additional 

information to help further develop the claim after the veteran’s 

death. 

The Committee finds this result both unfair and inefficient. Allowing substitution prevents unnecessary reworking of the same 

claim, allowing it to move forward from its current state of development to appropriate finality and saves families from facing unnecessary administrative hurdles. 

H.R. 5892 would also allow the dependent, in order of priority as 

identified under 5121(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code, to designate another qualified survivor to pursue the claim for accrued 

benefits. This would likely prove to be a very helpful provision for 

aged and ailing survivors of deceased veterans who might not otherwise pursue the pending claim for accrued benefits for these reasons. VA should interpret this section so that only one qualified dependent at a time is deemed eligible to apply as the substitute 

claimant. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
18 

ANNUAL REPORTS ON WORKLOAD OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

Currently the CAVC voluntarily provides an annual report to 

Congress which it also posts on its official Web site. H.R. 5892 

would mandate reporting requirements to Congress upon enactment to include the number of petitions filed, number and types of 

dispositions, number of oral arguments, number and status of 

pending appeals and petitions, summary of service performed by 

retired judges, number of decisions by a single judge, multi-judge 

and full Court panels, number of cases pending longer than 18 

months, and number of oral arguments. This information should 

better aid the Committee in conducting more focused oversight of 

the backlog of pending claims and in better assessing the needed 

resources. 

The CAVC has indicated on numerous occasions to the Committee that it would like to establish a Veterans Courthouse and 

Justice Center Complex and expand the number of judges from 

seven to nine. The Committee applauds Chief Judge Greene’s efficient and effective use of retired judges, but is concerned with its 

growing backlog of appeals. The additional reporting requirements 

would likely enhance the Committee’s ability to determine the need 

for additional resources at the CAVC. 

MODIFICATION OF JURISDICTION AND FINALITY OF DECISIONS OF

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

H.R. 5892 would modify the jurisdiction and finality of CAVC decisions on veterans’ claims by providing the Court with additional 

discretion to decide all issues presented on appeal, except in the 

case of a reversal. 

Pursuant to section 7251 of title 38, United States Code, the 

CVAC has exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the BVA. 

The Secretary of VA may not seek review of any of the CAVC’s decisions. The Court has the power to affirm, modify, or reverse a decision, or remand the case back to the BVA for further review, but 

it does not have the ability to review the ratings of disabilities 

claims. The majority of the cases decided are remanded back to the 

Board. This has seemed to impact the effectiveness of the CAVC in 

providing intermediate res judicata and the result is often an overly elongated appeals process for veterans’ claims. 

In 2007, 4,644 new cases were filed with the CAVC, up from 

3,729 in 2006. With a Court currently comprised of seven judges, 

the average caseload is approximately 663 cases per judge. This 

makes it one of the busiest federal appellate courts, where the average hovers around 263 cases. During the same period, 53 percent 

of these cases received were filed by unrepresented, pro se veterans, a decrease from 63 percent in 2006. Also in 2007, the CAVC 

decided 4,877 cases of which 1,666 were dismissed on procedural 

grounds. There were 3,211 merit decisions, the majority of which, 

more than 2000, were remanded (some in part only) and 1,098 

were affirmed. 

Currently the median time from filing at the CAVC to disposition 

is 416 days, up from 351 days in 2006. The average disposition 

time for a claim appealed to the CAVC hovers around five to seven 

years. The Court can hear cases by a single judge or in panels of 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
19 

no less than three judges. In 2005 the Court heard only 24 oral arguments, or one percent—the remaining cases pending were decided on brief, BVA decision, and the record available to the BVA. 

Since its inception, the CAVC has disposed of more than 25,000 

cases. Currently, it receives approximately 300–500 cases each 

month. Pursuant to section 7299 of title 38, United States Code, 

the Court has the right to recall retired judges for 90 days of service and as noted above has made impressive progress through use 

of this provision. 

The number of remands ordered by the CAVC concerns the Committee. While the Committee is aware that improved accuracy of 

adjudicated claims at the VARO and the BVA levels would significantly stem the need for the Court to remand the large number of 

claims, it also finds that the Court is not operating efficiently by 

remanding the majority of cases without addressing meritorious 

issues raised on appeal. The Committee does not accept the Court’s 

judicial economy explanation for this high remand rate. 

Further, remanding a majority of cases mostly for procedural 

reasons without reaching the merits of issues presented is not in 

the spirit of Congress’ intent in creating the CAVC. Before the 

Court’s inception in 1988, the only means of appeal for a veteran 

was an appeal with the BVA, a VA entity. Veterans had no recourse for judicial review of rating decisions outside of the VA. 

Finding this system of no judicial review inadequate, Congress, 

after significant pressure from veterans service organizations, created the CAVC (created as the United States Court of Veterans Appeals). If the Court remands the majority of its cases on procedural 

grounds, it does not encourage the VAROs and the BVA to improve 

its accuracy, to inform of mistakes in interpretation of VA laws and 

regulations, or afford veterans a timely resolution of claims. As the 

NVLSP pointed out in its May 22, 2007, testimony before the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs: 

The piecemeal adjudication policy adopted in Best [Best 

v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 18, 19–20 (2001)] and Mahl [Mahl 

v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 37 (2001)] may benefit the Court 

in the short term. By resolving only one of the issues 

briefed by the parties, a judge can finish an appeal in less 

time than would be required if he or she had to resolve all 

of the other disputed issues, thereby allowing the judge to 

turn his or her attention at an earlier time to other appeals. But the policy is myopic. Both disabled veterans and 

the VA are seriously harmed by how Best and Mahl contribute to the Hamster Wheel. 

Moreover, the CAVC may not be saving time in the long 

run. Each time a veteran appeals a case that was previously remanded by the CAVC due to Best and Mahl, the 

Central Legal Staff and at least one judge of the Court will 

have to duplicate the time they expended on the case the 

first time around by taking the time to analyze the case 

for a second time. 

The Committee concurs with this conclusion. Section 202 is intended to encourage the CAVC to reach the merits of issues filed 

on brief, to stop the recycling of claims, and to provide a more timeVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:08 Jul 31, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR789.XXX HR789

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
20 

16Statement of Retired Judges, Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs hearing, S. Hrg. 109–

694. 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 

ly resolution that veterans deserve on appeal and Congress intended for them to receive. 

The high percentage of remanded cases by the CAVC is not the 

only barrier to achieving appellate justice that our veterans face. 

In a statement before the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

retired judges from the CAVC indicated that judicial review by the 

Federal Circuit has resulted in too much judicial review and contributed greatly ‘‘to the intertwined problems of delay and backlog 

in finalizing decisions.’’ With four levels of appeals (one administrative to the BVA) and three possible levels of judicial appeal the 

judges noted that, ‘‘this is just more justice than the system can 

bear.’’ 16 The retired judges also noted that judicial review of one 

Federal intermediate appeals court by another is unique as the 

judges all have similar qualifications, backgrounds, nominations, 

and selection procedures; the difference being that CAVC judges 

have far more expertise in veterans’ law.17 Further the retired 

judges have estimated that Federal Circuit Court review accounts 

for an increase of more than 35 percent in the CAVC caseload.18

The Committee finds that these assessments warrant further oversight and policy consideration, but H.R. 5892 does not address 

these specific issues. 

HEARINGS

On March 13, 2007, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs held a hearing entitled, ‘‘The Impact of Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Claims Process.’’ The following witnesses testified: Mr. Daniel Bertoni, Acting Director, Education, 

Workforce, and Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Ms. Linda J. Bilmes, Professor, John F. Kennedy 

School of Government, Harvard University; Mr. Stephen L. Robinson, Director of Veterans Affairs, Veterans for America; Mr. Brady 

Van Engelen, Associate Director, Veterans for America; Mr. Patrick 

Campbell, Legislative Director, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 

America; Ms. Ann G. Knowles, President, National Association of 

County Veterans Service Officers; Mr. Jon Soltz, Co-Founder and 

Chairman, VoteVets.org; Mr. Ronald R. Aument, Deputy Under 

Secretary for Benefits, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by Mr. Michael Walcoff, 

Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations, Veterans 

Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

On April 24, 2007, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs held a hearing entitled ‘‘Helping Those Left 

Behind: Are We Doing Enough for the Parents, Spouses and Children of Veterans?’’ The following witnesses testified: The Honorable 

Brad Ellsworth, on behalf of Ron Nesler, Caregiver of Adult Dependent, New Harmony, Indiana; The Honorable Tom Latham of 

Iowa; Ms. Susan Jaenke, Mother of Deceased Veteran and Guardian of Grandchild, Iowa Falls, Iowa; Mr. Matthew B. Heavrin, Father of Deceased Veteran, Redlands, California, accompanied by 

Ms. Barbara Jean Heavrin; Ms. Amy Clark, Spouse of TerminallyVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:08 Jul 31, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR789.XXX HR789

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
21 

Ill Veteran, Bartow, Florida; Ms. Kimberly Dawn Hazelgrove, 

Widow, Lorton, Virginia; Ms. Rose Elizabeth Lee, Chair, Government Relations Committee, Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.; Ms. 

Patricia Montes Barron, Deputy Director of Government Relations, 

National Military Family Association; Ms. Christine Cote, Staff Attorney, National Veterans Legal Services Program; Mr. Jack 

McCoy, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program 

Management, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by Mr. Thomas M. Lastowka, Director, Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Regional Office and Insurance 

Center, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Statements for the Record Included: Mr. Peter S. 

Gayan, Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, 

The American Legion; The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz of Texas; 

and Ms. Priscilla Piestewa, Mother of Deceased Veterans and 

Guardian of Grandchildren, Flagstaff, Arizona. 

On May 22, 2007, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and 

Memorial Affairs held a hearing entitled, ‘‘The Challenges Facing 

the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.’’ The following witnesses 

testified: The Honorable William P. Greene, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; Mr. Bart Stichman, Joint 

Executive Director, National Veterans Legal Services; Mr. Robert 

Chisholm, Former President, National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates; Mr. Brian Lawrence, Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans; The Honorable James P. 

Terry, Chairman, Board of Veterans’ Appeals, U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs, accompanied by Mr. Randy Campbell, General 

Counsel Group II, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

On September 25, 2007, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs held a hearing entitled, ‘‘Board of Veterans’ Appeals Adjudication Process and the Appeals Management 

Center.’’ The following witnesses testified: Mr. Barton F. Stichman, 

Joint Executive Director, National Veterans Legal Services Program; Mr. Richard Paul Cohen, President, National Organization of 

Veterans Advocates, Inc.; Mr. Carl Blake, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America; Mr. Steve Smithson, Deputy 

Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, The 

American Legion; Mr. Adrian Atizado, Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans; Mr. Eric A. Hilleman, 

Deputy Director National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign 

Wars of the United States; Mr. Arnold Russo, Director, Appeals 

Management Center, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Honorable James P. Terry, Chairman, Board of Veterans’ Appeals, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 

On October 9, 2007, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs conducted a field hearing in New Windsor, 

New York, entitled, ‘‘Personal Costs of the U.S. Department of Veterans Claims Backlog.’’ The following witnesses testified: Mr. Anthony Zippo, Director, Orange County Veterans Service Agency; 

Mr. Ned Foote, New York State Council, Vietnam Veterans of 

America; Mr. R. Michael Suter, Chairman, Veterans Affairs and 

Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion; Mr. Alex Lazos, 

Veteran, Harriman, New York; Mr. John Rowan, President, Vietnam Veterans of America on behalf of Mr. Ted H. Wolf, Veteran, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
22 

Pomona, New York; Mr. Eddie J. Senior, Veteran, West Harrison, 

New York; Christopher Ryan, Veteran, Ellenville, New York, accompanied by Ms. Angela Ryan; Mr. Michael Walcoff, Associate 

Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations, Veterans Benefits 

Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Statements 

for the Record Included: Mr. Michael Tokarz, Legislative Counsel 

Member, The American Legion; and, Mr. Jerry Donnellan, Director, 

Rockland County Veterans Service Agency. 

On October 10, 2007, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs conducted a full Committee hearing entitled, ‘‘Findings of the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission.’’ The following witness testified: James Terry Scott, LTG, USA (Ret.), Chairman, Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission. 

On November 8, 2007, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs conducted a legislative hearing on a number 

of bills introduced in the 110th Congress, including H.R. 3047, H.R. 

3249, H.R. 3286, H.R. 3415, H.R. 1137, H.R. 3954, and H.R. 4084. 

The following witnesses testified: Mr. Richard Daley, Associate 

Legislation Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America; Mr. Steve 

Smithson, Deputy Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation 

Commission, The American Legion; Mr. Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by Mr. 

Richard J. Hipolit, Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs; Paul Tibbits, M.D., Deputy Chief Information Officer, Office of Enterprise Development, Office of Information Technology, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; and, Mr. David K. 

Schettler, Director, Communications Management Service, National Cemetery Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Statements for the Record Included: The Honorable Jim 

Langevin of Rhode Island; Mr. Raymond C. Kelley, National Legislative Director, American Veterans (AMVETS); Mr. Kerry Baker, 

Associate Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans; Ms. 

Rose Elizabeth Lee, Chair, Government Relations Committee, Gold 

Star Wives of America, Inc.; Mr. Lesley Witter, Director of Political 

Affairs, National Funeral Directors Association; and, Mr. Ronald B. 

Abrams, Joint Executive Director, National Veterans Legal Services Program. 

On January 29, 2008, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs held a hearing entitled, ‘‘The Use of Artificial 

Intelligence to Improve the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Claims Processing System.’’ The following witnesses testified: Tai 

Cleveland, GySgt, USMC (Ret.), Disabled Veteran, accompanied by 

Ms. Robin Cleveland; Mr. John Roberts, National Service Director, 

Wounded Warrior Project; Tom M. Mitchell, Ph.D., E. Fredkin Professor and Chair, Machine Learning Department, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University; Randolph A. Miller, 

M.D., Donald A.B. and Mary M. Lindberg University Professor of 

Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; 

Marjie Shahani, M.D., Senior Vice President of Operations, QTC 

Management, Inc; Mr. Ned M. Hunter, President and Chief Executive Officer, Stratizon Corporation; Mr. John F. McGarry, Senior 

Vice President of Benefits, Chief Risk Officer Unum; Mr. Gary A. 

Christopherson, Former Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for 

Health and Chief Information Officer, Veterans Health AdministraVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:08 Jul 31, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR789.XXX HR789

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
23 

tion, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and Former Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, U.S. Department of 

Defense; Ms. Kim Graves, Director, Office of Business Process Integration, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; and, Mr. Stephen W. Warren, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Technology, Office of Information 

and Technology, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Statements 

for the Record Included: Mr. Raymond C. Kelley, National Legislative Director, American Veterans (AMVETS); Mr. Kerry Baker, Associate National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans; 

Mr. Steve Smithson, Deputy Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion; and, the Paralyzed 

Veterans of America. 

On February 14, 2008, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs held a hearing entitled, ‘‘Examining the 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ Claims Processing System.’’ The following witnesses testified: Ms. Joyce McMahon, Ph.D., Managing Director, CNA Corporation; Mr. Michael McGeary, Senior 

Program Officer and Study Director, Committee on Medical Evaluation of Veterans for Disability Benefits, Board on Military and 

Veterans Health, Institute of Medicine; Mr. Daniel Bertoni, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office; Mr. Richard Paul Cohen, Executive 

Director, National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc.; Mr. 

Ronald B. Abrams, Joint Executive Director, National Veterans 

Legal Services Program; Mr. J. David Cox, R.N., National Secretary-Treasurer, American Federation of Government Employees, 

AFL–CIO; Mr. Gordon Erspamer, Senior Counsel, Morrison and 

Foerster; Mr. Adrian Atizado, Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans; Mr. Paul Sullivan, Executive Director, Veterans for Common Sense; Mr. Steve Smithson, Deputy 

Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, The 

American Legion; Mr. Gerald T. Manar, Deputy Director, National 

Veterans Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; 

Mr. John Roberts, National Service Director, Wounded Warrior 

Project; Mr. Michael Walcoff, Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, 

Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Ms. Diana Rubens, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for 

Field Operations, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Statements for the Record Included: Ms. Linda J. Bilmes, Professor, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University; and, Master Sergeant Kurt Priessman, 

Veteran, USAF (Ret.). 

On February 26, 2008, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs held a hearing entitled, ‘‘The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities.’’ The 

following witnesses testified: Dennis Vincent McGinn, VADM, USN 

(Ret.), Member, Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission; Lonnie 

Bristow, M.D., Chair, Committee on Medical Evaluation of Veterans for Disability Compensation, Board on Military and Veterans 

Health, Institute of Medicine; Dean G. Kilpatrick, Ph.D., Member, 

Committee on Veterans’ Compensation for Posttraumatic Stress 

Disorder, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
24 

Jonathan Samet, M.D., M.S., Chairman, Committee on Evaluation 

of the Presumptive Disability, Decision-Making Process for Veterans, Board on Military and Veterans Health, Institute of Medicine; Joyce McMahon, Ph.D., Health Care Operations and Policy 

Research Center, Center for Naval Analyses Corporation; Mark H. 

Hyman, M.D., Presenter, American Academy of Disability Evaluating Physicians; Sidney Weissman, M.D., Member, Committee on 

Mental Healthcare for Veterans and Military Personnel and Their 

Families, American Psychiatric Association; Mr. Ronald B. Abrams, 

Joint Executive Director, National Veterans Legal Service Program; Mr. Dean Stoline, Assistant Director, National Legislative 

Commission, The American Legion; Mr. Kerry Baker, Associate National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans; Mr. Gerald T. Manar, Deputy Director, National Veterans Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; Mr. Bradley G. Mayes, 

Director, Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by 

Tom Pamperin, Deputy Director for Policy and Procedures, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Steven H. Brown, M.D., M.S., Director, Compensation and 

Pension Exam Program, Veterans Health Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Patrick Joyce, M.D., Chief Occupational Health Clinic, Veterans Health Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. Richard Hipolit, Assistant General 

Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and, Joseph Kelley, 

M.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Clinical and Program Policy (Health Affairs), U.S. Department of Defense, accompanied by Horace Carson, M.D., Senior Medical Advisor, Air Force 

Review Boards Agency (SAF/MRB), U.S. Department of Defense. 

Statement for the Record Included: the American Medical Association. 

On April 10, 2008, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs held a legislative hearing entitled, ‘‘The Veterans Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act of 2008.’’ The 

following witnesses testified: The Honorable William P. Greene, Jr., 

Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; Mr. Kerry 

Baker, Associate National Legislative Director, Disabled American 

Veterans; Mr. Ronald B. Abrams, Joint Executive Director, National Veterans Legal Services Program; Mr. Steve Smithson, Deputy Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, The 

American Legion; Mr. Eric A. Hilleman, Deputy Director, National 

Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; 

Mr. Carl Blake, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans 

of America; and, Mr. Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation 

and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by Mr. Richard J. 

Hipolit, Assistant General Counsel, and Steven L. Keller, Senior 

Deputy Vice Chairman, Board of Veterans’ Appeals, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Statements for the Record Included: Mr. 

Raymond C. Kelley, National Legislative Director, American Veterans (AMVETS); Ms. Rose Elizabeth Lee, Chair, Executive Director, National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc.; Mr. Richard Paul Cohen, Executive Director, National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc.; and, Mr. Richard Weidman, Executive DiVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:08 Jul 31, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR789.XXX HR789

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
25 

rector for Policy and Government Affairs, Vietnam Veterans of 

America. 

SUBCOMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On April 24, 2008, the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs met in open markup session and ordered favorably forwarded to the full Committee H.R. 5892, by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On April 30, 2008, the full Committee met in open markup session, a quorum being present, and ordered H.R. 5892 favorably reported to the House of Representatives, by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires the Committee to list the record votes on the motion 

to report the legislation and amendments thereto. There were no 

record votes taken on amendments or in connection with ordering 

H.R. 5892 reported to the House. A motion by Mr. Hall of New 

York to order H.R. 5892 reported favorably to the House of Representatives was agreed to by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goals and 

objectives are reflected in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY, ENTITLEMENT AUTHORITY, AND TAX

EXPENDITURES

In compliance with clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee adopts as its own the estimate of new budget authority, entitlement authority, or tax expenditures or revenues contained in the cost estimate prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

EARMARKS AND TAX AND TARIFF BENEFITS

H.R. 5892 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), 

or 9(f) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE

The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate on H.R. 5892 

prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
26 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is the cost estimate for H.R. 5892 

provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, July 28, 2008. 

Hon. BOB FILNER, Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5892, the Veterans Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act of 2008. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dwayne M. Wright. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT A. SUNSHINE

(For Peter H. Orszag, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5892—Veterans Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act 

of 2008 

Summary: H.R. 5892 would increase the number of veterans eligible for disability compensation by modifying the requirements for 

eligibility. The bill also would require the Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) to conduct several studies and complete several reports on various matters relating to the delivery of veterans disability benefits and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(CAVC), and for other purposes. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 

5892 would increase direct spending by $60 million in 2009, by $1.5 

billion over the 2009–2013 period, and by $4.8 billion over the 

2009–2018 period. In addition, CBO estimates that implementing 

H.R. 5892 would increase discretionary costs by $5 million over the 

2009–2013 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 

amounts. Enacting the bill would have no impact on revenues. 

H.R. 5892 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 700 (veterans benefits and services). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 

Total 

2009– 

2013 

Total 

2009– 

2018 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget Authority ......................... 60 165 360 420 480 540 600 670 730 800 1,485 4,825 

Estimated Outlays ........................................ 60 165 360 420 480 540 600 670 730 800 1,485 4,825 

Note: In addition, H.R. 5892 would increase spending subject to appropriation by $5 million over the 2009–2013 period. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
27 

Direct spending 

To receive disability compensation from VA, veterans must demonstrate, generally through documentation in official records, that 

their disabilities are related to their service in the military. Veterans who have engaged in combat with the enemy face a much 

lower burden of proof. Those veterans’ disabilities can be presumed 

to be service-connected if any type of evidence—verification from 

other members of the veteran’s unit, for example—is consistent 

with the circumstances of the veterans’ service. According to VA 

regulations, engaging in combat with the enemy means personal 

participation in events constituting an actual fight or encounter 

with a military foe or hostile unit or instrumentality. It includes 

presence during such events either as a combatant or 

servicemember performing duty in support of combatants, such as 

providing medical care to the wounded. 

Section 101 would expand the definition of combat with the 

enemy to include service on active duty in a theater of combat operations—as determined by VA in consultation with the Secretary 

of Defense—during a period of war. Many veterans cannot have 

their disability presumed to be service-connected because they cannot prove that they engaged in combat with the enemy. Section 101 

would alleviate the evidentiary burden of proof of personal participation as long as the veteran could prove that he or she served in 

a theater of combat operations during a period of war. 

Based on data from VA, CBO expects that most of the population 

affected would be veterans seeking disability compensation for 

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). VA reports that 50 percent 

of disability claims for PTSD are approved and that the majority 

of denials are because of lack of evidence of service-connection. 

In total, CBO estimates that enacting section 101 would increase direct spending by $4.8 billion over the 2009–2018 period; those 

costs would include amounts for new accessions (newly approved 

beneficiaries), veterans currently on the rolls, and surviving 

spouses and dependents. 

New Accessions. CBO expects that implementing section 101 

would increase both the number of disability claims that VA would 

receive for PTSD, and the approval rate for such claims. Over the 

2002–2006 period, VA received about 188,000 (on average) initial 

claims for disability compensation each year. About 80 percent of 

those claims were approved. Of those new accessions to the disability compensation rolls, about 15 percent involved PTSD (about 

20,000 per year). 

Based on data from VA, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5892 

would increase applications for disability compensation for PTSD 

by 20 percent and the approval rate for such claims by 25 percent. 

Thus, CBO estimates that about 11,000 additional veterans would 

be eligible to receive compensation in 2009. Of those, CBO further 

estimates that 25 percent would apply and be approved for benefits 

in 2009—the remainder would be approved over the next two 

years—and that, on average, they would receive one-half of the annual benefit. Consistent with CBO’ s baseline assumptions for new 

accessions, CBO estimates that the number of veterans who would 

be newly eligible each year would decline to about 6,800 by 2018. 

In 2006 (2007 data are unavailable), the average disability rating 

for a veteran with PTSD was 40 percent and the average annual 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
28 

benefit payment for a disability rated at 40 percent was $6,516 (or 

$543 monthly). Adjusting for cost-of-living increases, the annual 

payment for a veteran rated at 40 percent in 2009 would be about 

$7,080. After accounting for mortality and cost-of-living adjustments, CBO estimates that, under section 101, direct spending for 

new accessions would increase by $10 million in 2009, by about 

$770 million over the 2009–2013 period, and by $3 billion over the 

2009–2018 period. 

Veterans Currently on the Rolls. Section 101 also would make 

some veterans who are currently receiving disability compensation 

for other disabilities eligible to receive compensation for PTSD as 

well. Many veterans who are receiving a disability compensation 

payment are rated for more than one disability. The average rating 

for veterans on the disability compensation rolls in 2007 was 40 

percent and the average combined rating—a combination of all disabilities for which a veteran is receiving compensation—for veterans with PTSD was 70 percent. 

About 12,600 veterans who are currently receiving compensation, 

and who served in Iraq, Afghanistan, and/or elsewhere in the war 

on terrorism, had disability claims for PTSD denied over the period 

from October 2001 through March 2008, because their PTSD could 

not be verified as service-connected. Of those, CBO estimates 80 

percent (or about 10,000 veterans) would be eligible for an increase 

in their disability payment under H.R. 5892. CBO expects that 

such veterans would see their disability ratings increase from 40 

percent to 70 percent. 

In 2006, the average annual disability payment for a veteran 

rated at 40 percent was $6,516 and the average payment for a veteran rated at 70 percent was $22,326—a difference of $15,810. 

CBO estimates that, in 2009, the annual difference between a 40 

percent and a 70 percent rating would be $17,175 and that it would 

increase with cost-of-living adjustments to about $20,800 by 2018. 

After also adjusting for mortality, and assuming a three-year 

phase-in of veterans re-applying for benefits, CBO estimates that 

enacting section 102 would increase direct spending for existing recipients by about $1.6 billion over the 2009–2018 period. 

Surviving Spouses and Dependents. VA provides dependency and 

indemnity compensation (DIC) payments to the surviving spouses 

of certain deceased veterans. CBO expects that some of the veterans who would become eligible for disability compensation under 

H.R. 5892 would die over the 2009–2018 period, leaving survivors 

who would be eligible for DIC payments. Currently, about 25 percent of veterans’ deaths result in new accessions to the DIC rolls. 

Assuming an average age for a DIC accession of 63 years and accounting for mortality of surviving spouses, CBO estimates that 

about 30 surviving spouses would receive a DIC payment in 2009, 

increasing to about 1,800 in 2018. The average annual DIC benefit 

payment in 2007 was $13,667. After adjusting for cost-of-living increases, CBO expects the annual DIC benefit payment would average about $14,430 in 2009 and would increase to about $17,500 in 

2018. We estimate that enacting section 101 would increase direct 

spending for surviving spouses by about $120 million over the 

2009–2018 period. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
29 

Discretionary spending 

H.R. 5892 includes several provisions that, in total, would increase discretionary costs by $5 million over the 2009–2013 period, 

assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

Reports. The bill would require VA to complete a series of reports 

and studies for the Congress on varying topics. Those studies include: an overhaul of the disability compensation ratings system; 

the employee work credit system of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA); the work management system of VBA, which is designed to improve claims processing times for benefits delivery; an 

assessment of VBA’s quality assurance program; the employment of 

medical professionals to provide expert medical advice in evaluating disability claims; a review of VA’s information technology systems for processing claims and a comprehensive plan for improving 

those systems; and workload reports for the CAVC. Based on information from VA, CBO estimates that completing those reports 

would cost about $3 million over the 2009–2013 period. 

Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation. Section 102 

would establish the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation. The committee would provide recommendations and advice to 

the Congress and the Secretary about maintaining and periodically 

adjusting the schedule for VA disability ratings. Based on information from the General Services Administration on the cost of administering and staffing an advisory committee, CBO estimates 

that implementing section 102 would cost about $2 million over the 

2009–2013 period, assuming availability of appropriated funds. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 5892 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Dwayne M. Wright; Impact 

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-Branum; 

Impact on the Private Sector: Daniel Frisk. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates regarding H.R. 5892 prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

Regarding section 5(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 

section 102 of the bill requires the establishment of an advisory 

committee. The Committee finds that establishing the advisory 

committee is the most efficient way of carrying out the policies involved. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds that the Constitutional auVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:08 Jul 31, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR789.XXX HR789

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
30 

thority for H.R. 5892 is provided by Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States. 

APPLICABILITY TO LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title; table of contents 

This section provides the short title of H.R. 5982 as the ‘‘Veterans Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act of 2008,’’ and 

the table of contents. 

Section 2. Findings 

This section provides a number of findings related to the VA 

claims processing system. 

TITLE I. MATTERS RELATING TO MODERNIZING THE DISABILITY

COMPENSATION SYSTEM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Section 101. Clarification of meaning of ‘‘combat with the enemy’’

for purposes of service-connection of disabilities 

This section would expand the definition of ‘‘combat with the 

enemy’’ under section 1154(b) of title 38, United States Code, to include active service in a theater of combat operations (as determined by the Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of Defense) during a period of war; or in combat against a hostile force 

during a period of hostilities. This would be effective upon enactment of this act. 

Section 102. Study on readjustment of schedule for rating disabilities 

This section would require the Secretary to conduct a study on 

adjusting the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) taking 

into standards, practices and codes in common and current use by 

the medical, psychiatric and disability communities. The study 

would take into account loss of quality of life and loss of earnings 

capacity and examine the nature of the disability. Furthermore, the 

study would examine potential disparities between physical and 

mental disability ratings and be adjusted to ensure parity, especially in regard to employability, as needed. VA would be required 

to consult with other stakeholders and the veteran service organizations and also take into consideration reports from previous commissions and task forces. 

The study would be required to be completed within 180 days 

after enactment. A report to Congress would be due 60 days after 

the completion of the study. A plan would be due to Congress 120 

days after the report had been submitted that would outline alignment of the VA Rating Schedule with commonly used medical 

codes, would bridge gaps between the current schedule and current 

state of medical knowledge, would give priority to certain common 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
31 

disorders, ensure continuous updates, and ascertain transition. A 

timeline, not to exceed three years, for the plan would be required. 

Additionally, this section would require the establishment of an 

18-member Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation of 

leading experts who would advise the Secretary on revising and readjusting the VASRD on an on-going basis and provide annual reports to the VA Secretary which would be required to be submitted 

to Congress within 90 days after receipt by the Secretary. 

Section 103. Study on employee work credit system of Veterans Benefits Administration 

This section would require the Secretary to conduct a study on 

its work credit system focusing on performance standards and accountability, objectivity, accuracy, consistency, and efficiency, timeliness, prioritization of the severely injured, and documenting lessons learned. 

A study report would be due to Congress not later than 180 days 

after enactment of H.R. 5892 along with a plan for implementing 

a new system for evaluating work production. If a new system is 

not implemented, this section would require the Secretary to suspend the current work credit system. 

Section 104. Study on work management system 

This section would require Secretary to conduct a study and report on the work management system of the VBA (currently CPI) 

focusing on increasing accountability, quality, accuracy, and timeliness of the VBA claims processing system. A report to Congress 

would be due within 180 days of enactment. 

Section 105. Certification and training of employees of Veterans 

Benefits Administration responsible for processing claims 

This section would mandate a certification examination of appropriate VBA claims processing personnel and managers. Development of a certification examination would be required to take place 

not later than one year after enactment of this act. Implementation 

procedures would be required 90 days later. In addition, a contract 

with an outside entity to conduct an evaluation of VBA’s training 

would be required to evaluate its process, continuing education 

needs, and centralization requirements. A training study report 

would be due to Congress within 180 days enactment with annual 

reports and plans due thereafter. 

Section 106. Annual assessment of quality assurance program 

This section would amend section 7731 of title 38, United States 

Code, to require the Secretary to contract with an independent entity to conduct an annual quality assurance assessment that measures a statistically valid sample of VBA employees and their work 

product for accuracy, consistency, and reliability and to track 

trends. An annual report to Congress would be required. 

Section 107. Expedited treatment of fully developed claims and requirement for checklist to be provided to individuals submitting 

incomplete claims 

This section would require the Secretary to set a policy within 

180 days of enactment for veterans to be able to submit claims and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
32 

declare them fully developed and ‘‘ready to rate’’ at the time of submission and receive a rating within 90 days. 

This section would also amend VA’s duty to notify under section 

5103(a) of title 38, United States Code, by obligating the Secretary 

to create a checklist for claims specific requests of additional evidence. The checklist would need to be completed within 180 days 

of enactment and submitted to Congress within 60 days. 

Section 108. Study and report on employing medical professionals 

to assist employees of Veterans Benefits Administration 

This section would require the Secretary evaluate the need for 

the VBA to hire medical professionals (including those who are not 

physicians) to assist its personnel responsible for processing and 

adjudicating claims as a reference resource and report to congress 

within 180 days of enactment. This section requires the study to 

include a statistically significant sample of VBA employees to ascertain their views on such assistance. If hired by the VBA as advisors, medical professionals would not be permitted to contribute to 

the rating or to influence rating decisions. If implemented by VA 

this section would require that all VBA rating personnel would 

have access to such professionals. 

Section 109. Assignment of partial ratings to qualifying veterans 

This section would amend chapter 11 of title 38, United States 

Code, to provide authority for the VA to provide partial ratings for 

qualified severely (50 percent service-connected) and very severely 

(100 percent service-connected) injured veterans who are 365 days 

or less from discharge from active duty and gainful employment is 

not feasible. A partial rating would be rendered on the most obvious conditions not requiring a medical examination while deferring 

other issues for which a rating is not immediately assignable until 

such ratings can be established. 

Section 110. Review and enhancement of use of information technology at Veterans Benefits Administration 

This section would require the VA to conduct a review and to develop a plan to implement comprehensive information technology 

upgrades, including web portals, rule-based expert systems, and decision support software within one year to enhance its claims processing capabilities and to rate claims within the time period VA 

identifies in its Annual Performance Report to Congress. This information technology capability would also include the integration 

of exam templates with the VASRD and bi-directional access to 

medical records from VA and the Department of Defense. In carrying out this review, information technology best practices and 

lessons learned by the Veterans Health Administration and other 

entities would be incorporated. A report to Congress with a plan 

would be due not later than January 1, 2009. 

Section 111. Treatment of claims upon death of claimant 

This section would allow an eligible survivor to become a substitute claimant upon the death of a veteran in order to continue 

the claim and to submit additional evidence up to one-year after 

death of veteran. Only one person at a time may be treated as the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
33 

claimant to processing a claim to completion. This section would be 

effective upon the date of enactment of H.R. 5892. 

TITLE II. MATTERS RELATING TO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

Section 201. Annual reports on workload of United States Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims 

This section would mandate the chief judge of the CAVC to report annually to Congress, providing additional workload data on 

appeals, petitions, applications, dispositions, oral arguments and 

other measures. 

Section 202. Modification of jurisdiction and finality of decisions of 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

This section would amend section 7252(a) of title 38, United 

States Code, regarding the jurisdiction and finality of CAVC decisions on veterans’ claims to give the CAVC greater discretion to decide all issues presented except in the case of a reversal. This section would apply to decisions of the BVA made on or after the date 

of enactment of H.R. 5892. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

PART I—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 5—AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF THE 

SECRETARY 

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL AUTHORITIES 

Sec. 

501. Rules and regulations. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III—ADVISORY COMMITTEES 

* * * * * * * 

546. Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III—ADVISORY COMMITTEES 

* * * * * * * 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
34 

§ 546. Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—(1) There is in the Department the Advisory 

Committee on Disability Compensation (hereinafter in this section 

referred to as the ‘‘Committee’’). 

(2) The Committee shall consist of not more than 18 members appointed by the Secretary from among individuals who—

(A) have demonstrated significant civic or professional 

achievement; and 

(B) have experience with the provision of disability compensation by the Department or are leading medical or scientific experts in relevant fields. 

(3) The Secretary shall seek to ensure that members appointed to 

the Committee include individuals from a wide variety of geographic areas and ethnic backgrounds, individuals from veterans 

service organizations, individuals with combat experience, and 

women. 

(4) The Secretary shall determine the terms of service and pay 

and allowances of the members of the Committee, except that a term 

of service may not exceed two years. The Secretary may reappoint 

any member for additional terms of service. 

(b) RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMITTEE.—(1) The Secretary shall, on 

a regular basis, consult with and seek the advice of the Committee 

with respect to the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the 

schedule for rating disabilities under section 1155 of this title. 

(2)(A) In providing advice to the Secretary under this subsection, 

the Committee shall—

(i) assemble and review relevant information relating to the 

needs of veterans with disabilities; 

(ii) provide information relating to the nature and character 

of disabilities arising from service in the Armed Forces; 

(iii) provide an on-going assessment of the effectiveness of the 

schedule for rating disabilities; and 

(iv) provide on-going advice on the most appropriate means 

of responding to the needs of veterans relating to disability compensation in the future. 

(B) In carrying out its duties under subparagraph (A), the Committee shall take into special account the needs of veterans who 

have served in a theater of combat operations. 

(c) ANNUAL REPORT.—(1) Not later than March 31 of each year, 

the Committee shall submit to the Secretary a report on the programs and activities of the Department that relate to the payment 

of disability compensation. Each such report shall include—

(A) an assessment of the needs of veterans with respect to disability compensation; 

(B) a review of the programs and activities of the Department 

designed to meet such needs; and 

(C) such recommendations (including recommendations for 

administrative and legislative action) as the Committee considers appropriate. 

(2) Not later than 90 days after the receipt of a report under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall transmit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a copy of 

the report, together with any comments and recommendations concerning the report that the Secretary considers appropriate. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
35 

(3) The Committee may also submit to the Secretary such other 

reports and recommendations as the Committee considers appropriate. 

(4) The Secretary shall submit with each annual report submitted 

to the Congress pursuant to section 529 of this title a summary of 

all reports and recommendations of the Committee submitted to the 

Secretary since the previous annual report of the Secretary submitted pursuant to that section. 

(d) APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.—(1) 

Except as provided in paragraph (2), the provisions of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to the activities 

of the Committee under this section. 

(2) Section 14 of such Act shall not apply to the Committee. 

* * * * * * * 

PART II—GENERAL BENEFITS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 11—COMPENSATION FOR SERVICECONNECTED DISABILITY OR DEATH 

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL 

Sec. 

1101. Definitions. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER VI—GENERAL COMPENSATION PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

1156. Partial disability ratings. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER VI—GENERAL COMPENSATION PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1154. Consideration to be accorded time, place, and circumstances of service 

(a) * * * 

(b)(1) In the case of any veteran who engaged in combat with the 

enemy in active service with a military, naval, or air organization 

of the United States during a period of war, campaign, or expedition, the Secretary shall accept as sufficient proof of service-connection of any disease or injury alleged to have been incurred in or aggravated by such service satisfactory lay or other evidence of service incurrence or aggravation of such injury or disease, if consistent 

with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service, 

notwithstanding the fact that there is no official record of such incurrence or aggravation in such service, and, to that end, shall resolve every reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran. Service-connection of such injury or disease may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The reasons for granting or denying service-connection in each case shall be recorded in full. 

(2) For the purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘combat with the 

enemy’’ includes service on active duty—


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
36 

(A) in a theater of combat operations (as determined by the 

Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of Defense) during 

a period of war; or 

(B) in combat against a hostile force during a period of hostilities. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1156. Partial disability ratings 

(a) ASSIGNMENT OF PARTIAL RATINGS.—For the purpose of providing disability compensation under this chapter to a qualifying 

veteran, the Secretary shall assign a partial disability rating to the 

veteran as follows: 

(1) In the case of a qualifying veteran described in subsection 

(b)(3)(A), a rating of 100 percent. 

(2) In the case of a qualifying veteran described in subsection 

(b)(3)(B), a rating of 50 percent. 

(b) QUALIFYING VETERAN.—For the purposes of this section, a 

qualifying veteran is a veteran— (1) who has been discharged from active duty service for 365 

days or less; 

(2) for whom a permanent disability rating is not immediately assignable under the regular provisions of the schedule 

for rating disabilities under section 1155 of this title or on the 

basis of individual unemployability; and 

(3) who has— (A) a severe disability for whom substantially gainful employment is not feasible or advisable; or 

(B) a wound or injury, whether healed, unhealed or incompletely healed for whom material impairment of employability is likely. 

(c) EXAMINATIONS.—A medical examination of a qualifying veteran is not required to be performed before assigning a partial disability rating to the veteran under this section, but the fact that 

such an examination is conducted shall not prevent the Secretary 

from assigning such a rating. 

(d) TERMINATION OF PARTIAL RATING.—(1) Except as provided in 

paragraph (2), a partial disability rating assigned to a veteran 

under this section shall remain in effect until the earlier of the following dates: 

(A) The date on which the veteran receives a permanent disability rating based on the schedule for rating disabilities 

under section 1155 of this title. 

(B) The date that is 365 days after the date of the veteran’s 

last separation or release from active duty. 

(2) The Secretary may extend a partial disability rating assigned 

to a veteran under this section beyond the applicable termination 

date under paragraph (1), if the Secretary determines that such an 

extension is appropriate. 

* * * * * * * 

PART IV—GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE 

PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
37 

CHAPTER 51—CLAIMS, EFFECTIVE DATES, AND 

PAYMENTS 

SUBCHAPTER I—CLAIMS 

Sec. 

5100. Definition of ‘‘claimant’’. 

* * * * * * * 

5109C. Expedited treatment of fully developed claims. 

SUBCHAPTER III—PAYMENT OF BENEFITS 

* * * * * * * 

5121A. Death of claimant. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER I—CLAIMS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 5103. Notice to claimants of required information and evidence 

(a) * * * 

(b) PROVISION OF CHECKLIST.—In providing notice of required information and evidence to a claimant and a claimant’s representative, if any, under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide to the 

claimant and any such representative a checklist that includes a detailed description of information or evidence required to be submitted by the claimant to substantiate the claim. 

ø(b)¿ (c) TIME LIMITATION.—(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

§ 5109C. Expedited treatment of fully developed claims 

(a) EXPEDITED TREATMENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary shall take 

such actions as may be necessary to provide for the expeditious 

treatment by the appropriate regional office of the Veterans Benefits 

Administration of any fully developed claim to ensure that any such 

claim is adjudicated not later than 90 days after the date on which 

the claim is submitted. 

(b) NOTICE OF REQUIRED INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE.—Nothing 

in this section shall affect the responsibility of the Secretary to provide notice under section 5103 to a claimant and a claimant’s representative of required information and evidence that is necessary to 

substantiate a fully developed claim. 

(c) FULLY DEVELOPED CLAIM DEFINED.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘fully developed claim’’ means a claim for a benefit 

under a law administered by the Secretary—

(1) for which the claimant—

(A) received assistance from a veterans service officer, a 

State or county veterans service officer, an agent, or an attorney; or 

(B) submits along with the claim an appropriate indication that the claimant does not intend to submit any additional information in support of the claim and does not require additional assistance with respect to the claim; and 

(2) for which the claimant submits a certification in writing 

that is signed by the claimant stating that at the time of signaVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:08 Jul 31, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR789.XXX HR789

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
38 

ture, no additional information is available or needs to be submitted in order for the claim to be adjudicated. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III—PAYMENT OF BENEFITS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 5121A. Substitution in case of death of claimant 

(a) SUBSTITUTION.—If a veteran who is a claimant dies while a 

claim for any benefit under a law administered by the Secretary, or 

an appeal of a decision with respect to such a claim, is pending and 

awaiting adjudication, the person who would receive any accrued 

benefits due to the veteran under section 5121(a)(2) of this title shall 

be treated as the claimant for the purposes of processing the claim 

to completion, except that such person may only submit new evidence in support of the claim during the one-year period beginning 

on the date of the death of the veteran. 

(b) LIMITATION.—Only one person may be treated as the claimant 

under subsection (a). 

(c) DESIGNATION OF THIRD PARTY.—If the person who would be 

eligible to be treated as the claimant under subsection (a) certifies 

to the Secretary that the person does not want to be treated as the 

claimant for such purposes, such person may designate the person 

who would receive the benefits under section 5121(a)(2) upon the 

death of the person who would otherwise be treated as the claimant 

under subsection (a) to be treated as the claimant for the purposes 

of processing the claim to completion. 

* * * * * * * 

PART V—BOARDS, ADMINISTRATIONS, AND 

SERVICES 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 72—UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

VETERANS CLAIMS 

SUBCHAPTER I—ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION 

Sec. 

7251. Status. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

7288. Annual report. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER I—ORGANIZATION AND JURISDICTION 

* * * * * * * 

§ 7252. Jurisdiction; finality of decisions 

(a) The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The Secretary may not seek review of any such decision. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
39 

øThe Court shall have power to affirm, modify, or reverse a decision of the Board or to remand the matter, as appropriate.¿ The 

Court shall have power to affirm, modify, reverse, remand, or vacate 

and remand a decision of the Board after deciding all relevant assignments of error raised by an appellant for each particular claim 

for benefits. In a case in which the Court reverses a decision on the 

merits of a particular claim and orders an award of benefits, the 

Court need not decide any additional assignments of error with respect to that claim. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

§ 7288. Annual report 

The chief judge of the Court shall annually submit to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the House of Representatives a report summarizing 

the workload of the Court during the last fiscal year that ended before the submission of such report. Such report shall include, with 

respect to such fiscal year, the following information: 

(1) The number of appeals filed. 

(2) The number of petitions filed. 

(3) The number of applications filed under section 2412 of 

title 28. 

(4) The number and type of dispositions, including settlements. 

(5) The median time from filing to disposition. 

(6) The number of oral arguments. 

(7) The number and status of pending appeals and petitions 

and of applications described in paragraph (3). 

(8) A summary of any service performed by recalled retired 

judges during the fiscal year. 

(9) The number of decisions or dispositions rendered by a single judge, multi-judge panels and the full Court. 

(10) The number of cases pending longer than 18 months. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 77—VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION 

SUBCHAPTER I—ORGANIZATION; GENERAL 

Sec. 

7701. Organization of the Administration. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER II—QUALITY ASSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 

7735. Employee certification. 

* * * * * * * 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
40 

SUBCHAPTER II—QUALITY ASSURANCE 

§ 7731. Establishment 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(c)(1) The Secretary shall enter into a contract with an independent third-party entity for the conduct of an annual assessment 

of the quality assurance program under this section. Each such assessment shall— (A) evaluate a statistically valid sample of employees of the 

Veterans Benefits Administration and a statistically valid sample of the work product of such employees to assess the quality 

and accuracy of such work product; 

(B) measure the performance of each regional office of the Veterans Benefits Administration; 

(C) measure the accuracy of the disability ratings assigned 

under the schedule for rating disabilities under section 1155 of 

this title; 

(D) compare disability ratings and evaluate consistency between regional offices; 

(E) assess the performance of employees and managers of the 

Veterans Benefits Administration; and 

(F) produce automated categorizable data to help identify 

trends. 

(2) The Secretary shall use information gathered through the annual assessments required under this section in developing the employee certification required under section 7735 of this title. 

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to replace the quality assurance program under this section, as in effect 

on the date of the enactment of the Veterans Disability Benefits 

Claims Modernization Act of 2008. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 7734. Annual report to Congress 

The Secretary shall include in the annual report to the Congress 

required by section 529 of this title a report on the quality assurance activities carried out under this subchapter. Each such report 

shall include—

(1) * * * 

(2) information with respect to the accuracy of decisions, including trends in that information; øand¿ 

(3) the results and findings of the most recent annual assessment conducted under section 7731(c) of this title; and 

ø(3)¿ (4) such other information as the Secretary considers 

appropriate. 

§ 7735. Employee certification 

(a) DEVELOPMENT OF CERTIFICATION EXAMINATION.—The Secretary shall develop a certification examination for appropriate employees and managers of the Veterans Benefits Administration who 

are responsible for processing claims for benefits under the laws administered by the Secretary. The Secretary shall develop such examination in consultation with examination development experts, interested stakeholders, including such appropriate employees, employee 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
41 

representatives, and managers, and appropriate public and private 

entities, including veterans service organizations and other service 

organizations. 

(b) EMPLOYEE AND MANAGER REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary shall 

require appropriate employees and managers of the Veterans Benefits Administration who are responsible for processing claims for 

benefits under the laws administered by the Secretary to take a certification examination. 

(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary may not satisfy any requirement 

of this section through the use of any certification examination or 

program that exists as of the date of the enactment of the Veterans 

Disability Benefits Claims Modernization Act of 2008. 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS