A Court Ruling Meant to Protect Veterans Could End Up Hurting Them

By Bishop Garrison. Read it in The Defense Post.

This past May in North Carolina, a federal district court judge ruled that non-accredited organizations cannot serve as “agents” on behalf of veterans navigating the medical claims process. 

While designed with the admirable goal of protecting veterans, the ruling can and will have a negative impact on their support and critical care if not properly addressed.

I know this firsthand. My own claim has been denied twice and is currently on appeal — not because of any failure on the part of VA staff, who have been nothing but professional and supportive, but because small gaps in documentation at the outset can prolong, or entirely reset, the process. That complexity is precisely why outside help matters.

The Ruling and Its Risks

The Department of Veterans Affairs has worked hard to reduce its backlog to 100,000 pending claims from a high of 580,000, serving a veteran population of nearly 9 million. Progress has been real. 

But veterans continue to navigate a system where the quality and thoroughness of an initial application can mean the difference between months and years before a final decision. 

For simple claims, this may not be a difficult task. For complex ones — involving older injuries, evolving conditions, or years elapsed since service — it can be overwhelming.

That’s where non-accredited volunteers, advocates, and professionals have stepped in, many asking little or no compensation in return. This ruling threatens to shut them out. 

By broadly defining assistance as “agency,” the court has created uncertainty about what role family members, friends, or even doctors and nurses can play. The chilling effect on those willing to help will be real.

A System Already Under Strain

The stakes are high. Some advocates estimate that 30 to 40 percent of initial claims are denied. A 2024 VA Office of the Inspector General report found that over 45 percent of those denials stemmed from departmental procedural errors, not veteran fault. 

In a system where staff error drives nearly half of all denials, veterans cannot afford to lose support at the most critical stage of the process.

None of this is to say fraud should be tolerated. Bad actors who prey on veterans deserve harsh penalties, and existing laws should be fully enforced. But suppressing the broader ecosystem of support is not the answer. 

Legislation like the CHOICE Act offers a more targeted path: capping fees, banning upfront payment, prohibiting deceptive advertising, and ensuring veterans know all their options, including free ones. 

If legislation stalls, the VA could move administratively to clarify guidelines and create protected space for legitimate helpers — paid and unpaid alike.

The accreditation process matters, but it is not a complete solution. It can take over a year and involves real costs and bureaucratic barriers. The gap in initial claims support is real and predates this ruling. The ruling makes it worse.

More Options, Not Fewer

The ruling is based on a genuine desire to protect a vulnerable community from fraudulent actors, and that is a worthy cause. But it cannot be viewed in a vacuum. 

Volunteer suppression will mean more errors at the initial claims stage, more denials, and a longer wait for veterans who are already waiting too long. It is a worsening cycle of frustration and heartache that we must address.

What legislators and senior leaders must recognize is that more options — not fewer — are what this community needs. Trusted volunteers and informed professionals should feel safe helping veterans at the most pivotal moment in the claims process. Bad actors must be held accountable. 

But those willing to service our community selflessly, particularly at a moment in the process as pivotal as the initial intake, should feel safe and free to do so.

Bishop Garrison is a senior national security executive, veteran, and writer with more than two decades of experience spanning military service, presidential administration and campaigns, as well as the nonprofit and private sector.

He is the Founder of Orange Court Strategies, a Service-Disabled-Veteran-Owned professional services firm that provides executive-level advice and connects clients to a network of subject matter experts on geopolitical risks, organizational health, policy analysis, and other nuanced, strategic issues for both public and private sector clients.