Benefit of doubt for veterans
Bufkin v. Collins
In brief
The VA generally gets the final call on whether disability-claim evidence is evenly balanced unless its factual assessment is clearly wrong.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 7-2 · March 5, 2025 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- This case concerns the standard of review the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must use when examining whether the Department of Veterans Affairs properly applied the "benefit-of-the-doubt" rule to disability claims.
- Who it affects
- Veterans challenging disability decisions face a more limited review of the VA's assessment of closely balanced evidence. For example, a veteran who says medical evidence was evenly balanced must show the VA made a clear factual mistake.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court held that the VA's determination that evidence is in "approximate balance" is a factual finding subject to clear-error review, rather than a legal conclusion subject to de novo review.
The case defines how much deference the Veterans Court must give the VA when applying the benefit-of-the-doubt rule to disability claims.
Question presented
Must the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1)?
What the Court decided
Holding
The VA’s determination that the evidence regarding a service-related disability claim is in “approximate balance” is a predominantly factual determination reviewed only for clear error. 75 F. 4th 1368, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
From the opinions
“The VA's determination that evidence is in "approximate balance" is a "predominantly factual determination" reviewed only for clear error.”
What's next
The Federal Circuit's judgment remains in place, and the Veterans Court must apply clear-error review to the VA's approximate-balance determinations. Veterans and the VA will apply that standard in future disability appeals.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Judgment Issued.
Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Jackson, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined.
Opinion added: Bufkin
Opinion added: opinion
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Bufkin
Argued. For petitioners: Melanie L. Bostwick, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Bufkin v. Collins?
- The Court said the VA's approximate-balance decision is mainly factual. The Veterans Court may reverse it only for clear error.
- Who is affected by the Bufkin v. Collins decision?
- Veterans appealing disability claims and the VA are affected. Appeals courts must give the VA more deference on closely balanced evidence.
- What happens next after Bufkin v. Collins?
- The Federal Circuit's decision stands. The Veterans Court will use clear-error review in future cases involving the benefit-of-the-doubt rule.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.