By Thomas Mackie[1]
Introduction
After leaving the service, a military veteran may be entitled to regular payments from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for disabilities sustained in the course of his or her military duties.[2] Under federal law, no individual may assist veterans “in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims for VA benefits” unless the VA has accredited the individual.[3] While offering VA claimants assistance without accreditation is illegal under federal law, the practice is widespread because no criminal penalties exist for providing unaccredited VA claims assistance.[4]
Congress requires VA accreditation to ensure that veterans receive competent and ethical legal representation.[5] Generally, only individual agents or attorneys may seek accreditation, but there are exceptions for law firms and veterans’ nonprofit organizations.[6] The accreditation process involves training, background checks, and continuous oversight to ensure compliance with ethical standards.[7] Most notably, accredited individuals may not charge a veteran for assistance unless the VA denies a veteran’s disability claim and the veteran appeals the denial.[8] In such cases, accredited individuals may charge reasonable fees for assisting the veteran in navigating the appeal.[9]
Historically, federal law imposed criminal penalties on individuals who violated VA accreditation rules.[10] But in 2006, Congress removed the criminal penalties.[11] Consequently, despite the general prohibition on unaccredited VA claimant representation and on charging veterans for assistance, bad actors brazenly profit off veterans seeking benefit claims.[12] Such unaccredited companies, entities, or individuals—known as claim sharks—exploit veterans seeking VA benefits.[13] A 2024 Louisiana law purports to curb this activity, but instead it does little to hinder claim sharks from preying on veterans.[14]
I. “Claims Nightmare”: Veterans Struggle to File for VA Disability Benefits
For military veterans seeking disability compensation from the VA, the application process can be daunting.[15] Requesting VA benefits involves filling out numerous forms, tracking down past medical records, seeking additional medical evaluations, and waiting for VA eligibility determinations.[16] Elderly and disabled veterans may have particular difficulty filling out forms, navigating complex websites, or understanding how to properly file a VA benefits claim.[17] To understand the complexity of seeking VA benefits, the benefit claims process must be briefly explained.
To attain VA disability benefits, a veteran must overcome several hurdles. First, the veteran must prove that he or she meets the VA’s definition of veteran. The VA defines veteran as “a person who served in the active military, naval, air, or space service and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable.”[18] This definition clearly outlines that to qualify for most VA benefits, an individual must have served in one of the United States’ six service branches without being dishonorably discharged.[19] Next, the veteran must establish that he or she incurred or aggravated the disability during active service in the armed forces.[20] This requirement is relatively straightforward for Veterans who served full-time.[21] However, proving active service may be more difficult for veterans of reserve components, such as the National Guard or Army Reserves.[22] Regardless, once the VA determines the individual meets the definition of veteran and active service, the VA evaluates the nature of the servicemember’s discharge.[23]
Service members typically end their time in the military when they are discharged.[24] The VA classifies discharges according to the character of the veteran’s service.[25] The discharge categories, ranked from the most favorable to the veteran to the least favorable, are Honorable or Under Honorable Conditions; General under Honorable Conditions; Other than Honorable; Bad Conduct; Dishonorable; and Entry Level or Non-Characterized.[26] Accordingly, an Honorable Discharge does not preclude a veteran from receiving VA benefits, but veterans with other discharge categories may not receive some, or any, VA benefits.[27] Upon discharge from the service, veterans receive a DD-214 form, which lists the veteran’s discharge category.[28] The discharged veteran must then submit the DD-214, medical records, and, optionally, lay evidence supporting the claim to the VA to establish benefits eligibility.[29]
Proving to the VA that the veteran is eligible for benefits is merely the first step. To receive disability compensation, the veteran must show (1) he or she was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable; (2) his or her disease or injury was incurred or aggravated in the line of duty; and (3) the disability is not a result of his or her own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs.[30] While proving each individual requirement may be burdensome, the second requirement is often the most difficult to prove.
Veterans have several means to prove their injuries were service connected, meaning caused in—or as a result of—their military service.[31] Service connection may be proven either directly, presumptively, or by secondary service connection.[32] If attempting to prove directly, a veteran must prove to the VA that he or she has a currently diagnosed disability condition that was incurred while in service and has existed since first incurred.[33] Where the government has definitive evidence that service in specific locations and conflicts resulted in certain injuries or disabilities, a veteran may establish service connection presumptively by proving he or she served in one of several specified locations or locales known to be especially hazardous.[34] Finally, the VA may grant service connection for a disability caused by a disability that is already service connected.[35] Once the veteran establishes his or her discharge status, service connected disability, and that the disability did not result from misconduct or drugs, the veteran may finally be eligible for compensation.[36]
This overview of the VA claims process is a highly simplified explanation, as the process includes many additional steps and requirements not discussed here.[37] Given this complexity, it is understandable why many veterans struggle to navigate the VA claims process.[38] To help alleviate veterans’ burdens in independently filing claims, the VA offers accreditation to individuals desiring to help veterans file their disability claims.[39] As explained above, acquiring accreditation is a rigorous process. Attaining VA accreditation involves a background check, passing a test on the VA claims system, and undergoing regular training.[40] Offering claims assistance without VA accreditation or charging a fee for such assistance is illegal, excluding some limited exceptions.[41] This is where the claim sharks come in.
II. Louisiana’s PLUS Act Allows Claim Sharks to Profit off Veterans
Claim sharks take advantage of veterans’ frustration with the VA claims system by offering paid assistance and coaching.[42] However, such assistance comes at great cost to veterans. One Navy veteran described a claim shark company’s practices as “slimy car sales tactics” and “defrauding veterans out of their benefits.”[43] The same veteran accused the company of charging him “nearly $10,000 for about six hours of coaching, some of which included watching pre‑recorded online informational sessions with as many as 400 other attendees at a time.”[44] Even more concerning, claim shark companies may charge a percentage of the veterans’ VA benefits.[45] This arrangement leads to situations where a veteran could owe a consulting company tens of thousands of dollars for a service that is available for free from VA-accredited attorneys, agents, and organizations.[46]
Despite a recently enacted state law, claim sharks remain a pressing issue for Louisiana veterans.[47] In 2024, Louisiana passed the Preserving Lawful Utilization of Services for Veterans Act (PLUS Act).[48] PLUS Act supporters claimed that the law would safeguard Louisiana veterans “from exploitation, [and] ensure[] transparency in VA disability benefits assistance.”[49] Perhaps unsurprisingly, the law’s major backers were two unaccredited claims companies acting through a lobbying group.[50] While PLUS Act supporters claim the law protects veterans, it only enables claim sharks to continue exploiting them.[51]
The PLUS Act, codified at Louisiana Revised Statute section 29:296, contains several loopholes allowing claim sharks to continue their unscrupulous practices.[52] For example, the statute states that compensation for assisting with VA claims “shall not exceed twelve thousand five hundred dollars.”[53] This means that claim sharks may still charge massive fees for doing minimal work, provided the fee does not exceed $12,500. To illustrate why this is problematic, a consulting company could legally charge a veteran $5,000 for six hours of trivial work. Even more concerning, claim sharks may demand a percentage of a veteran’s disability payments in perpetuity, imposing financial burdens on the veteran until he or she dies.[54] The PLUS Act does not prohibit such predatory payment schemes; it enables them.[55]
Additionally, while federal law requires individuals or entities to be VA-accredited to help veterans file their claims, the PLUS Act has no such limitation.[56] Louisiana Department of Veteran’s Affairs (LDVA) secretary, Charleton Meginley, argues that claim sharks deliberately avoid seeking accreditation because doing so would subject them to the same rules as accredited claims agents and attorneys.[57] Once a person becomes accredited, they cannot charge any fees from VA claimants to help them fill out forms.[58] Instead, if accredited, they would have to work on more complicated matters, such as appeals, to earn a commission.[59] By failing to require accreditation, the PLUS Act allows claim sharks to operate with impunity.
III. Legislative Attempts to Fight Claim Sharks Have Stalled
The most direct solution to counteract the PLUS Act is for the federal or Louisiana legislature to enact legislation that expressly criminalizes unaccredited VA disability claims assistance. A federal legislative proposal, titled the GUARD Act, would solve this problem.[60] The GUARD Act proposes to impose charges on “whoever directly or indirectly solicits, contracts for, charges, or receives, or attempts to solicit, contract for, charge, or receive, any fee or compensation with respect to the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of any claim for [VA] benefits.”[61] Thus, the GUARD Act would impose criminal penalties on entities that unnecessarily charge veterans for preparing their VA claims.[62] Such criminal penalties would include fines or up to one year of imprisonment.[63] Criminalizing unaccredited entities from exploiting veterans via federal legislation would deal a serious blow to claim sharks.
While the GUARD Act would likely be effective, it is unknown whether Congress will codify it. The bill is currently stalled in Congress,[64] and political bickering has hindered veteran‑favorable legislation in the recent past.[65] Initial Senate hearings on the bill suggest that both Republican and Democrat lawmakers acknowledge that unaccredited companies are problematic for veterans.[66] However, some lawmakers have expressed concerns that criminalizing unaccredited consulting companies would prohibit a valuable service.[67] Further, congressional lawmakers recently introduced a federal version of the PLUS Act.[68] The federal PLUS Act proposal directly contravenes the GUARD Act and would preempt states from passing anti-claim shark legislation.[69] Whether the GUARD Act or PLUS Act will prevail in Congress remains to be seen.
While the battle continues in Congress, states are taking their own measures to fight claim sharks.[70] Nearly 40 states have laws or have been debating bills that address unaccredited VA claims assistance.[71] In contrast, Louisiana is one of two states with laws that allow unaccredited VA claims assistance.[72] In 2023, Louisiana representative Dodie Horton sponsored a bill that emulates the GUARD Act by expressly prohibiting unaccredited entities from assisting veterans in filing for VA benefits.[73] But this bill remains stalled in the legislature, and the lack of action suggests it is effectively dead.[74] Thus, without state or federal legislation, the only means of countering Louisiana’s PLUS Act may be litigation.
IV. Wells v. Landry
In June 2024, Louisiana attorney John Wells filed a lawsuit against the state in the Middle District of Louisiana, alleging that the PLUS Act violates the Contracts Clause and Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.[75] The Supremacy Clause establishes that federal law preempts state law.[76] Accordingly, 38 U.S.C. § 5904 dictates the compensation scheme for veterans’ attorneys.[77] In his petition, Wells argued the PLUS Act attempts to supersede § 5904 by imposing its $12,500 compensation limit on individuals who assist veterans.[78] Further, Wells noted the PLUS Act ignores the issue of claim sharks and that it “makes no distinction between federally accredited and non-accredited individuals.”[79] Therefore, the PLUS Act’s compensation scheme may conflict with federal law by failing to identify whether it applies to accredited or unaccredited individuals. Thus, since the PLUS Act could be interpreted to apply to both, it likely encroaches on federal law dictating compensation for accredited agents or attorneys.
Further, one of Wells’s primary concerns is that the PLUS Act’s $12,500 statutory maximum for VA benefits assistance is too low.[80] Wells’s complaint suggests that accredited attorneys—who validly charge for assistance with VA benefit appeals—often secure judgments exceeding $12,500.[81] But accredited attorneys may not collect anything above that amount.[82] By hampering legitimate VA-accredited attorneys from earning the full value of their work, the PLUS Act may dissuade these attorneys from taking on veterans’ cases.[83] Therefore, the PLUS Act’s statutory compensation cap not only enables claim sharks, but also potentially limits veterans’ access to legal representation.[84]
Wells’s petition lists numerous additional allegations disputing the PLUS Act’s constitutionality.[85] Ultimately, Wells requests that the court declare the PLUS Act unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement.[86] While invalidating the PLUS Act would be a favorable outcome, claim sharks might find ways to continue preying on veterans. Claim sharks will likely continue ignoring any state or federal prohibitions since no criminal penalties exist. Therefore, the more permanent solution is to enact legislation, such as the GUARD Act, to definitively impose criminal penalties for unaccredited VA disability benefits claims assistance.
Conclusion
Veterans represent a unique category of American citizens. While veterans compose different races, genders, and creeds, they share one common attribute: a willingness to serve their country in the armed forces. However, bad actors take advantage of veterans’ frustration with the VA benefits system by promising to secure higher benefit ratings and faster results.[87] Instead, veterans—frequently disabled veterans—may be burdened with enormous fees, all to secure the benefits they are entitled to for free.[88]
Claim sharks argue their practices are necessary to deal with the VA’s clunky, bureaucratic benefits system.[89] It is undeniable that the VA’s claims process is sluggish and difficult for veterans to navigate.[90] But as stated by a Maryland lawmaker and Army veteran, “a lot of people are probably benefitting from the dysfunction in the VA . . . and [] that’s creating kind of a perverse incentive to not fix the dysfunction and not actually help the veterans.”[91] In other words, claim sharks are making a bad situation worse.
Louisiana’s tacit condonation of claim sharks via the PLUS Act is disappointing. While many states have passed laws to combat claim sharks, the Louisiana legislature seems uninterested or unable to take similar action.[92] If Louisiana lawmakers do not step up, Congress must enact criminal penalties for unaccredited VA benefits claims assistance. Ensuring veterans receive the benefits they’ve rightfully earned—without exploitation—is not just a legal duty, but a moral imperative.
[1] While it is uncommon for Louisiana Law Review editorial board members to submit Articles for online publication, I felt compelled to share my insights on the claim shark issue. When I asked if this Article could be added to the production cycle, I was deeply moved by the board’s overwhelming support and encouragement. I am especially grateful to Ashton Austin, Nathan Jagot, Kenli Conyers, Aidan Doughty, and Tara Roussel, who generously dedicated hours of their own time to edit, revise, and refine this Article, on top of balancing their usual duties. Their contributions were invaluable, and I sincerely thank them for their exceptional service. Lastly, I thank my girlfriend, Albane Korb, for her patience, love, and for believing in me when I struggled to believe in myself.
[2] Wesley Muller, Louisiana Enacts Law to Let Consultants Profit off Disabled Veteran Benefit Claims, La. Illuminator (Jun. 7, 2024, 7:00 AM), https://lailluminator.com/2024/06/07/louisiana-enacts-law-to-let-consultants-profit-off-disabled-veterans-benefit-claims/ [https://perma.cc/VDK4-XV8J].
[3] 38 C.F.R. § 14.629(b)(1) (2024) (governing accreditation of individuals seeking to represent VA claimants); see also How to Apply for Accreditation, U.S. Dept. Vet. Aff. (VA), https://www.va.gov/OGC/docs/Accred/HowtoApplyforAccreditation.pdf [https://perma.cc/N5LU-ZV8K] (describing what VA accreditation is, when accreditation is required, and listing the requirements for VA accreditation); 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c) (dictating that paid representation in connection with a VA benefits proceeding is permissible only after a benefit claimant has received notice of the VA’s initial decision over whether to grant the claimant’s request for benefits).
[4] See Muller, supra note 2 (“[A]bout 40% of complaints to the VA’s legal office in 2022 were about non-accredited claims consultants.”).
[5] See 38 C.F.R. § 14.629(b)(2) (2024) (“An individual desiring accreditation [] must establish that he or she is of good character and reputation, is qualified to render valuable assistance to claimants, and is otherwise competent to advise and assist claimants in [preparing VA benefits claims].”).
[6] Limited exceptions exist for Veteran’s Service Organizations (VSOs), attorneys in law firms, law students, and paralegals. Id. § 14.629(a)–(c).
[7] See id. § 14.629 (listing numerous requirements for accreditation).
[8] 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1).
[9] See id. § 5904(a)(5) (“A fee that does not exceed 20 percent of the past due amount of benefits awarded on a claim shall be presumed to be reasonable.”).
[10] “Whoever (1) directly or indirectly solicits, contracts for, charges, or receives, or attempts to solicit, contract for, charge, or receive, any fee or compensation except as provided in sections 5904 or 1984 of this title, or (2) wrongfully withholds from any claimant or beneficiary any part of a benefit or claim allowed and due to the claimant or beneficiary, shall be fined as provided in title 18, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” 38 U.S.C. § 5905 (2005) (amended 2006).
[11] Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-461, § 101(g), 120 Stat. 3403, 3408. (amending 38 U.S.C. § 5905 by striking “(1) directly or indirectly solicits, contracts for, charges, or receives, or attempts to solicit, contract for, charge, or receive, any fee or compensation except as provided in sections 5904 or 1984 of this title, or (2)”).
[12] “Under current federal law, most of these private companies are operating illegally, as many are not accredited by the VA to file claims. It is illegal for unaccredited agents to prepare, present or file claims on behalf of veterans; however, because Congress ended the criminal penalties for doing so in 2006, there is little to prevent these companies from offering to help veterans.” Press Release, La. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., LDVA, Veterans Service Organizations Advocate for Veterans to Protect Their Benefits Amid Pending Legislation (Apr. 26, 2024), https://www.vetaffairs.la.gov/wp-content/uploads/042624SB159NRFinal.pdf [https://perma.cc/M9LW-4HBW].
[13] The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), a military veteran organization, defines claim shark as “an individual or company that charges hefty fees to ‘assist’ or ‘consult’ veterans with filing their VA benefit claims.” Don’t Feed the Sharks, VFW, https://www.vfw.org/home-bottom-rotator/dc/claim-sharks [https://perma.cc/G4YF-Y39J]. This Article uses the terms claim shark, consulting company, and unaccredited entity interchangeably.
[14] Former VA secretary Peter O’ Rourke, the chief lobbyist behind the PLUS Act, stated that the Act “safeguards Louisiana’s veterans from exploitation, ensures transparency in VA disability benefit assistance, upholds their autonomy while providing essential protections, and reinforces their right to choose.” Muller, supra note 2. However, the PLUS Act inhibits these goals. See infra Parts II, IV.
[15] See Muller, supra note 2 (characterizing the process of filing for VA benefits as “often misunderstood”).
[16] See, e.g., 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (describing how to file a VA disability benefit claim).
[17] A 2023 VA assessment evaluated VA requests submitted under the PACT Act, which involves claims for disabilities arising from chemical exposure. The study found that veterans above the age of 55 represented the largest percentage of claims. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans’ Affs., VA Pact Act Performance Dashboard: Quarterly Demographic Supplement 3 (Sep. 2023), https://www.accesstocare.va.gov/pdf/VA_PACTActQuarterlyDemographic_Issue1_Final_508.pdf [https://perma.cc/9V7E-JTKM].
[18] 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(d).
[19] See id.
[20] A disability must be “incurred or aggravated . . . in line of duty in the active military, naval, air, or space service.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(k) (emphasis added).
[21] Active-duty component servicemembers typically receive a single DD-214 documenting their active service upon discharge from the military, but National Guard veterans receive an additional NGB-22 form. See Margaret Kuzma, Dana Montalto, Betsy Gwin & Daniel Nagin, Military Discharge Upgrade: Legal Practice Manual 43 (2021).
[22] See id. at 626.
[23] See 38 C.F.R. § 3.12.
[24] 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(h).
[25] See Kuzma et al., supra note 21, at 14–42 (explaining military discharge classifications and separation procedures).
[26] See id. at 50.
[27] 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(a) (providing that a veteran may receive VA pension, compensation, or other benefits if the veteran ended their service “by discharge or release under conditions other than dishonorable”).
[28] See Kuzma et al., supra note 21, at 42–43.
[29] See id.
[30] See 38 U.S.C. § 1110.
[31] 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(k)-(l).
[32] 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.
[33] 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (establishing criteria for direct service connection).
[34] 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (listing diseases subject to presumptive service connection).
[35] See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (establishing eligibility of compensation for secondary conditions and explaining criteria for secondary conditions).
[36] 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. 3.4(b)(1).
[37] For additional rules and regulations governing the claims process, see 38 C.F.R. pts. 3–4 (2024).
[38] See Jasper Craven, As Veteran Disability Claims Soar, Unaccredited Coaches Profit off Frustration with VA System, Tx. Trib. (Jul. 5, 2023, 5:00 AM), https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/05/veterans-disability-benefits-brian-reese-va-claims-insider/?utm_campaign=trib-social-buttons&utm_source=copy&utm_medium=social [https://perma.cc/6ABT-LQE4] (explaining that one veteran did not apply for benefits “because, like millions of veterans, he felt overwhelmed by the paperwork required”; another veteran described the claims system as an “adversarial, complex, and burdensome claims nightmare”).
[39] See 38 C.F.R. § 14.629(a)–(c).
[40] See 38 C.F.R. § 14.629; How to Apply for Accreditation, supra note 3.
[41] “[A] fee may not be charged, allowed, or paid for services of agents and attorneys with respect to services provided before the date on which a claimant is provided notice of the agency of original jurisdiction’s initial decision under section 5104 of this title with respect to the case.” 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1). In other words, unaccredited entities may only charge fees for assisting veterans with disability claim appeals.
[42] See Craven, supra note 38.
[43] Id. (quoting Jim Peckey).
[44] Id. (quoting Jim Peckey).
[45] See Wesley Muller, Lawmakers Ponder Whether Consultants for Veteran Benefits Should See Big Profits, La. Illuminator (May 6, 2024, 5:00 AM), https://lailluminator.com/2024/05/06/lawmakers-ponder-whether-consultants-for-veteran-benefits-should-see-big-profits/ [https://perma.cc/CB6B-XGKS].
[46] For example, under one consulting company’s payment scheme, a veteran who secures a high disability rating “would receive a monthly benefit of about $4,000 from the [VA] and would then owe the consulting company approximately $20,000.” Id.
[47] See Muller, supra note 2.
[48] Id.; Act No. 479, 2024 La. Acts ___.
[49] Muller, supra note 2.
[50] “The driving forces behind the legislation are two unaccredited claims companies, Veterans Guardian and Veteran Benefits Guide. They have joined forces under a lobbying group called National Association of Veterans Rights. NAVR’s leader and chief lobbyist is Peter O’Rourke, the VA secretary from the [first] Trump administration.” Id. Veterans Guardian and Veteran Benefits Guide reportedly spent a combined $2.72 million on lobbying for the PLUS Act. Id.
[51] See Press Release, La. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., supra note 12 (“[T]he PLUS Act would allow these private companies to exist and essentially expand the accreditation process.”).
[52] See La. Rev Stat. § 29:296.
[53] Id. § 29:296(C)(1).
[54] See Scam Alert: Veterans’ Disability Benefits Targeted Through Fraud Schemes, Disabled Amer. Vets. (DAV) (Feb. 8, 2024), https://www.dav.org/learn-more/news/2024/scam-alert-veterans-disability-benefits-targeted-through-fraud-schemes/ [https://perma.cc/9ZBJ-V9TN] (warning veterans that claim sharks’ fees “are often a percentage of future benefits payments”).
[55] See Press Release, La. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., supra note 12 (noting that in exchange for helping veterans seek VA benefits, claim sharks often seek a portion of a veteran’s compensation, and that “[t]hese fees can range from a few hundred dollars, to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on an initial rating or increase in rating a veteran may receive”).
[56] See 38 U.S.C. § 5904; 38 C.F.R. § 14.629(b)(1); La. Rev Stat. § 29:296.
[57] Muller, supra note 2.
[58] See id.; see also 38 C.F.R. § 14.636(b) (prohibiting VA-accredited agents and attorneys from collecting fees from VA claimants).
[59] See 38 C.F.R. § 14.636(c) (allowing VA-accredited agents and attorneys to collect fees in some limited circumstances); Press Release, La. Dep’t of Veterans Affs., supra note 12 (“These companies choose not to seek accreditation because it significantly limits the amount of compensation they can receive.”).
[60] See S. 740, 118th Cong. (2023).
[61] Id.
[62] See id.
[63] Id.
[64] In the Senate, no action has been taken on the Guard Act since 2023. S.740 – GUARD VA Benefits Act of 2023, Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/740/all-actions [https://perma.cc/KU6D-XZNF]. Similarly, a reciprocal bill in the House of Representatives has not moved since 2023. H.R.1139 – GUARD VA Benefits Act, Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1139/all-actions [https://perma.cc/5D6E-X9W2].
[65] For example, in 2022, a bill titled the PACT Act proposed additional healthcare coverage for millions of veterans who were exposed to toxins, including from burn pits in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Agent Orange in Vietnam. See Melissa Chan, Phil McCauseland & Daniel Arkin, Blindsided Veterans Erupt in Fury After Senate GOP Tanks Toxic Burn Pit Bill, NBC News (Jul. 28, 2022, 5:04 PM), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/blindsided-veterans-erupt-fury-senate-republicans-suddenly-tank-pact-a-rcna40516 [https://perma.cc/4YXU-V2L6]. The PACT Act enjoyed broad bipartisan support until 25 Senate Republicans unexpectedly reversed their positions and blocked the bill, to the frustration and anger of many veterans. See id. Congress ultimately signed PACT Act into law later in 2022. See Honoring Our PACT Act of 2022, Pub L. No. 117-168, 136 Stat. 1759 (2022).
[66] See Hearing to Consider Pending Legislation Before the Senate Comm. On Vet. Aff., 118th Cong. 1–32 (2023).
[67] For example, Senator Tom Tillis stated, “I, for one, think that we have many organizations that are doing a good job.” Id. at 10. Senator Tillis further acknowledged that claim sharks exist, but his comments suggested a reluctance to pass the GUARD Act because of the possibility that many unaccredited actors provide valuable services. See id. at 10–11.
[68] The proposed federal PLUS Act allows companies to attain VA accreditation, imposes criminal fines for unaccredited claims assistance, and instates a fee cap of $12,500 for VA claims assistance. Thus, while the proposal creates criminal penalties for unaccredited claims assistance, it affirmatively shields claim sharks by broadening accreditation to encompass charging predatory fees. See H.R.1656 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): PLUS for Veterans Act of 2025, Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1656/text.
[69] Id.
[70] For an interactive map indicating which states have laws blocking or allowing unaccredited claims consulting, see Leah Rosenbaum, This Company Is Spending Millions to Profit Off Veterans’ Benefits. Why Won’t Lawmakers Stop It?, War Horse (Apr. 18, 2025), https://thewarhorse.org/va-benefits-claims-lobbying-congress/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mil-ebb.
[71] Id.
[72] Louisiana and South Dakota are the only two states with laws that allow unaccredited claims assistance. Id.
[73] H.B. 979, 2024 Leg., Reg. Sess. (La. 2024). HB979 was previously HB496. HB496 by Representative Dodie Horton, La. State Legislature, https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?i=246254 [https://perma.cc/6KX5-J6P7].
[74] See id.
[75] See Complaint for Declaraator and Injunctive Relief, Military-Veterans Advocacy Inc. v. Landry, No. 24-cv-00446 (M.D. La. Jun. 5, 2024) [hereinafter Complaint].
[76] U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
[77] 38 U.S.C. § 5904.
[78] Complaint, supra note 75, at 4.
[79] Id.
[80] See id. at 4, 13–14.
[81] Id.
[82] “Under the [PLUS Act] cap, an attorney may be limited in the amount of the award he or she can accept. So for example, if the Court awards attorney fees in the amount of $17,000[,] the attorney would have to return the amount over $12,500.” Id. at 4.
[83] Id. at 14 (“The fee cap of [the Plus Act] would require Plaintiffs[] to seek fewer veterans cases and take other uncapped cases to offset the fee limitation in veterans cases.”).
[84] See id.
[85] See generally id.
[86] Id. at 18.
[87] See Muller, supra note 2.
[88] Muller, supra note 45 (quoting a veteran: “Why do I need to pay someone when I can go have that same service done free?”).
[89] See Rosenbaum, supra note 70 (quoting Peter O’Rourke: “Veterans are making conscious, informed decisions to seek help outside the VA’s current system, and no one should be outraged that they now have a choice”).
[90] See supra Part I.
[91] Rosenbaum, supra note 70.
[92] See supra Part III.