Nevada bill targets paid VA claims intermediaries; veterans groups back accreditation, private firms warn of lost choice

Assemblymember Ruben De Silva presented Assembly Bill 145, an omnibus veterans package that includes a provision to bar unaccredited persons or companies from preparing or presenting claims before the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Defense unless the person is recognized or accredited by the VA. De Silva said the provision is intended to protect veterans from predatory companies often referred to in testimony as "claim sharks." He also described other provisions in the bill, including creation of veteran hiring and peer‑mentor programs and extending free annual state‑park entry permits to Gold Star family members. The sponsor removed one element from initial drafts — a provision for spousal internment — after fiscal estimates placed potential costs between about $600,000 and $2,000,000.

Fred Wager, testifying on behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the Disabled American Veterans (DAV), said AB145 "strengthens NRS 417.133" and urged the committee to add civil‑penalty authority to deter firms that charge veterans for unregulated claims assistance. Wager and multiple veteran‑service organizations told the committee that accredited service officers, accredited attorneys and federally chartered veterans organizations provide assistance without charging veterans; they argued that barring nonaccredited fee‑charging entities would reduce fraud and give veterans recourse when they are harmed.

Opponents — including executives and employees of a Nevada‑based private provider, Veteran Benefits Guide (VBG) — said the bill as written would disallow their services and would therefore reduce veterans' options. Joshua Smith, VBG's CEO, testified the company "provides veterans with a private legal and federally compliant service" and argued AB145 "prohibits the services of honorable for profit companies like VBG from serving veterans." Smith and several VBG staffers described their work as life‑changing for clients who had been denied benefits for years and said many veterans choose paid assistance after trying free resources.

Committee members and counsel discussed federal/state interaction. Testimony referenced federal law and regulation (38 U.S.C. and 38 C.F.R.) and state statute NRS 417.133 as the existing statutory basis for limiting compensated assistance; counsel noted preemption analysis would be required before creating a separate state accreditation regime. The sponsor and supporters argued accreditation already exists through the federal VA, and that requiring accreditation protects veterans and creates accountability: an accredited representative can be sanctioned and held to professional and legal standards; an unaccredited company charging veterans currently falls outside such oversight, testimony said.

The hearing drew extensive oral testimony and written exhibits from veterans' organizations on both sides. Proponents included VFW, DAV, American Legion, United Veterans Legislative Council and several county and local veterans councils; a large group of veterans in the hearing room wore coordinating shirts in support. Opponents included VBG leadership and employees who said banning their services would remove a practical option some veterans use to get results. Sponsor De Silva suggested alternatives: encourage companies' employees to seek VA accreditation (an at‑no‑cost pathway) or work with the Nevada Department of Veterans Services to explore state‑level accreditation if federal action lags. The hearing did not result in a committee vote; the sponsor accepted a conceptual amendment that struck the spousal‑internment provision and preserved a carve‑out allowing volunteer or free claim‑preparation assistance by organizations that are not charging fees.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing on AB145 with no vote. Members requested follow‑up analysis on preemption and enforcement mechanics; the sponsor and supporters asked the legislature to consider companion federal action that would align accreditation and enforcement across jurisdictions.