Federal Lawsuit Challenges VA’s New Rule on Medication-Based Disability Ratings

A federal lawsuit is challenging a Department of Veterans Affairs rule that requires disability ratings to reflect how well veterans function on medication rather than the severity of their underlying condition. 

The rule, published Feb. 17 in the Federal Register and effective that day, drew fierce opposition from veterans, advocacy organizations and members of Congress. Within 48 hours, VA Secretary Doug Collins halted its enforcement. But the rule has not been formally rescinded, and the legal fight is just getting started.

What the Rule Does

The interim final rule, titled “Evaluative Rating: Impact of Medication,” amended the regulation governing how the VA evaluates functional impairment for disability compensation. Under the change, VA medical examiners are instructed to rate a veteran’s disability based on the veteran’s actual level of functional impairment while using prescribed medication or treatment. If medication reduces symptoms, the lower level of impairment determines the rating and the compensation that comes with it.

Read More: VA Won’t Enforce New Rule on Disability Ratings, Secretary Says. Congress Members Want It Rescinded

The VA framed the rule as a clarification of longstanding practice dating to 1958. But the practical effect reverses more than a decade of court precedent that generally prevented examiners from factoring in medication’s benefits when assigning ratings, unless the specific diagnostic code for that condition mentioned medication as a criterion.

The Court Precedent It Overrides

The rule directly targets a line of decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In Jones v. Shinseki (2012), the court held that the VA could not deny a higher rating based on medication’s ameliorative effects when the relevant diagnostic code did not list medication as a rating criterion. That standard stood for 13 years.

In March 2025, the same court extended that protection in Ingram v. Collins, ruling that VA examiners evaluating musculoskeletal conditions must attempt to determine a veteran’s baseline severity without medication. That case involved Army veteran Carlton Ingram, who had been rated 20% for a back disability and 10% for an ankle condition while taking prescription painkillers. The court found that the VA erred by not discounting the beneficial effects of his medication when assigning those ratings.

In its Federal Register filing, the VA called the Ingram decision an “erroneous interpretation” that would require re-adjudication of more than 350,000 pending claims across roughly 500 diagnostic codes. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs classified the rule as a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, estimating an annual economic impact exceeding $100 million. Despite that classification, VA Secretary Doug Collins invoked emergency authority to make the rule effective immediately, bypassing both the standard 60-day congressional review period and the typical advance public comment process.

The Lawsuit

Less than 48 hours after the rule took effect, a petition was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The plaintiffs include MilVet Law Firm, based in Tacoma, Washington, which represents more than 500 veterans with service-connected disability claims; Stone Rose Law Firm of Arizona, through attorney Derek Debus; and Andrew Laffoon, a disabled Vietnam veteran with a pending disability claim.

The petition asks the court to vacate the rule, arguing that it causes direct financial harm to veterans by lowering disability ratings and, in turn, reducing compensation. MilVet described the VA’s action as “shocking” and “unprecedented,” noting that for over a decade, the VA had been required to rate disabilities absent the effects of medication.

Paul Jennings, a lead attorney at MilVet and himself a disabled veteran, said the rule creates a perverse incentive for veterans to skip treatment to protect their benefits. He also questioned the VA’s use of emergency rulemaking authority, noting the agency bypassed the formal process required to implement a rule of this size.

The Enforcement Halt, and Why It May Not Be Enough

Secretary Collins announced Feb. 19 that the VA was halting enforcement of the rule. He stated it would “not be enforced at any time in the future” but said the VA would continue collecting public comments through the April 20 deadline. Before announcing the halt, Collins had defended the rule and called criticism of it “fake news.”

The rule has not been formally rescinded. It remains published in the Federal Register and is still part of the Code of Federal Regulations. Veterans advocates and legal experts have pointed out that halting enforcement is not the same as withdrawal and that the rule could be reinstated at any time without a new rulemaking process.

VA Deputy Secretary Paul Lawrence said Feb. 23 at the Disabled American Veterans Mid-Winter Conference that the department had “withdrawn” the rule and had “no intention of ever doing anything or talking about it ever again,” but no formal revocation has appeared in the Federal Register.

On Feb. 25, a group of 21 Democratic and independent lawmakers sent Collins a letter demanding immediate formal rescission. The letter, led by Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal and House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Ranking Member Mark Takano, requested that the VA report by March 2 what steps it is taking to suspend the rule and provide a timeline for rescinding or replacing it. At a Senate hearing the same day, Blumenthal pressed for permanent removal, noting more than 18,000 public comments had been submitted opposing the rule.

What Veterans Should Know Right Now

With enforcement halted, the situation for most veterans should be back to where it was before Feb. 17. The prior legal standard, under which examiners generally could not factor in medication’s benefits unless a specific diagnostic code addressed it, remains in effect for claims being processed now, according to Collins. Here is what to keep in mind:

Existing ratings are not automatically affected. Even when the rule was briefly in effect, it did not trigger automatic reductions of established ratings. VA regulations at 38 CFR § 3.951(b) protect ratings that have been in place for 20 or more years from reduction except in cases of fraud. Separate due process protections apply to proposed reductions of any established rating.

If you have a pending claim involving medication, talk to your representative. Veterans with pending claims or appeals that involve arguments under the Jones or Ingram precedent should consult with an accredited veterans service organization representative or attorney. Timing may matter depending on how things develop in court.

You can submit a public comment. The comment period on the interim final rule remains open through April 20, 2026, at regulations.gov under RIN 2900-AS49. More than 18,000 comments have already been submitted. Public comments become part of the administrative record and carry weight in any future legal challenge.

Stay on Top of Your Military Benefits

Military benefits are always changing. Keep up with everything from pay to health care by subscribing to Military.com, and get access to up-to-date pay charts and more with all latest benefits delivered straight to your inbox.