Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sb 231 Claims Shark Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Indiana Veterans Committee holds SB 231 after clashes over "claim shark" protections and veteran choice
Summary
At a Veterans Committee hearing on SB 231, veterans groups and the state attorney general urged restrictions on unaccredited firms that charge up-front or excessive fees for VA disability claims, while private firms and some advocates said the bill as written would eliminate lawful paid assistance; the committee held the bill for amendment and scheduled an amend-and-vote session in February.
A state Veterans Committee hearing on Senate Bill 231 ended with the chair saying the panel would hold the measure for further amendment after competing testimony from veterans organizations, the attorney general's office and private claim-assistance firms.
Chair Sen. Jim Toms opened the session by describing SB 231 as an effort to protect veterans from predatory, unaccredited businesses that charge upfront or excessive fees while preserving legitimate service providers. He said the committee wanted testimony and time for legislative staff to examine federal accreditation barriers before proceeding.
Supporters told the committee the bill is needed to halt what they called "claim sharks." Raymond Leonberger, a Park County veterans service officer, testified that some providers solicit veterans on social media, demand upfront payments and take large percentages of back pay, and urged lawmakers to bar presentment-based fees and require clear VA accreditation disclosure. "They're plastering their services all over Facebook," Leonberger said, and veterans — particularly those with brain injuries or fixed incomes — "are getting hit with bills of like $5,000 to $25,000." Judy King of the Veterans of Foreign Wars said accredited representation yields measurable benefit and that paid preparers should be accredited; she cited VA usage and benefit figures in urging support for the bill.
Steven Taturka, senior deputy attorney general in the consumer protection division, told senators the bill would fold VA requirements into state law and into the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, giving the state enforcement tools the federal statute lacks. Taturka summarized federal fee guidance, saying a 20% fee on back pay is generally reasonable and that fees exceeding 33% are presumptively unreasonable, and said the bill would allow both veterans and the attorney general to pursue violators.
Private contractors and consulting firms that help veterans prepare claims urged changes. Representatives from Veterans Guardian and similar firms said they do not act as agents or attorneys, operate on contingency, disclose free state and county options, and provide services to veterans who face delays in an overburdened VA system. A Veterans Guardian representative told the committee the bill as written would eliminate lawful consulting options and raised constitutional and business concerns, citing an out-of-state litigation history over similar laws. "The bill as drafted restricts veteran choice rather than protects it," a Veterans Guardian speaker said, urging a "SAVE"-style amendment that would cap contingency fees, prohibit upfront or nonrefundable fees and require clear disclosure of free options.
Committee members pressed both sides on specifics: how veterans find services, whether current state law already allows enforcement, how many consumer complaints have been received, and whether pending litigation (including a referenced New Jersey case and an in-state AG enforcement action) should affect the committee's timing. The deputy attorney general said the AG's office is litigating an unaccredited provider and that federal rules prohibit charging fees prior to an initial VA determination; state law remedies are meant to fill enforcement gaps.
After testimony and questioning, Chair Toms said he would hold SB 231, work with stakeholders including the AG's office and the veterans organizations, and schedule an amend-and-vote committee in February rather than attempt to pass the bill in its current form. No final vote was taken.
The committee's next procedural step is an amend-and-vote session in February; sponsors and opponents were asked to negotiate language that preserves accredited protections while addressing concerns about veteran choice and legal risk.
Sources: public testimony to the Veterans Committee, including statements from county veteran service officers, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Veterans Coalition, the state attorney general's consumer protection division, Veterans Guardian and Veteran Benefits Guide.
