Subcommittee hears competing plans to let courts, VA aggregate appeals and speed veterans' decisions

The House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee heard testimony on legislation designed to speed Department of Veterans Affairs appeals by allowing aggregation of similar appeals and clarifying the limited-remand power used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Supporters said the bills would reduce years-long waits and produce more consistent decisions; witnesses warned that statutory language must be crafted carefully to avoid unintended limits on judicial flexibility.

Proponents argued aggregation — consolidating many claims that raise the same legal question into a single proceeding — can deliver faster, more uniform outcomes than deciding identical questions hundreds of times. Professor Michael Wishnie of Yale Law School told the committee that aggregation has "promised to help ameliorate VA delays to some significant extent, enabling veterans in a single case to secure a ruling that would help resolve dozens, if not hundreds, of similar claims." He urged the subcommittee to approve the Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act (H.R. 38 35), which would expand the court's ability to aggregate and would authorize the Board of Veterans' Appeals to aggregate at the agency level as well.

Representatives of the court and VA warned that language in some draft bills is unclear and could have unintended consequences. Colonel Tiffany Wagner, clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, said broad, undefined references to terms such as "claim," "notice of disagreement," or "supplemental claim" make it "difficult to determine the intended application" and cautioned that adding writs or new tolling rules could raise complex jurisdictional questions. Acting Board official Evan Dykert told the panel that appeals are time-consuming because "each and every case represents a veteran with a unique set of facts and circumstances," and said the department shares Congress's goal of continuous improvement while urging careful drafting and discussion about feasibility and resources.

Witnesses also discussed a recent federal-circuit decision (the SCORE litigation) that narrowed when the veterans court may aggregate appeals; several judges dissented from that decision, saying limiting aggregation would undercut the court's ability to address systemic errors. Wishnie recommended a targeted fix: grant supplemental-jurisdiction authority for appeals while leaving writ procedures to the court's existing practice.

The subcommittee took testimony on several related measures during the hearing, including proposals to codify the court's limited-remand authority and to allow class-style litigation for veterans whose claims remain at different stages in the VA system. Colonel Wagner said codifying limited-remand rules could inadvertently narrow judicial discretion if drafted too tightly; Wishnie urged that the bill avoid micromanaging procedural details and instead empower the court and board to adopt reasonable rules.

Lawmakers and witnesses agreed on the problem: the board reported more than 200,000 pending appeals and tens of thousands of veterans wait years for decisions. The shape of any reform, however, will depend on statutory drafting that balances veterans' access to efficient aggregate relief with preserving judicial flexibility and protections for individual claims.

The subcommittee did not vote on legislation; members said they would continue to work with the court, VA and veterans service organizations on technical fixes and cost and implementation questions.