## Facts

- The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued a 2014 Final Rule requiring that claims and appeals be initiated on standard VA forms.
- Before the rule, VA practice permitted “informal claims,” which could preserve an effective date if a formal application followed within a specified period.
- The Final Rule replaced the informal-claim practice with an “intent-to-file” process that preserved an effective date if a claimant submitted a designated intent-to-file communication and later filed a completed standard-form claim within the allowed timeframe.
- Veterans Justice Group, LLC and several veterans’ advocacy organizations filed consolidated petitions for direct review in the Federal Circuit under 38 U.S.C. § 502, challenging the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and veterans’ benefits statutes.
- Petitioners argued the rule imposed improper form requirements, altered effective-date preservation, and created risks for unrepresented veterans.

## Issues

1. Whether the Final Rule’s intent-to-file framework was a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule sufficient to satisfy APA notice-and-comment requirements.
2. Whether requiring standardized forms for claims and appeals, and linking effective dates to those forms or specified intent-to-file submissions, conflicted with 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5110, 5102, and 7722.
3. Whether eliminating the prior informal-claim practice and adopting the intent-to-file mechanism was arbitrary or capricious under the APA.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit denied the consolidated petitions for review and upheld the Final Rule in full.
- The court held the intent-to-file and standardized-forms provisions were a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule and thus satisfied APA notice-and-comment requirements.
- The court held the rule was consistent with the governing statutes, including 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a)(1).
- The court held the rule was not arbitrary or capricious because VA provided a reasoned explanation connecting identified administrative problems to the chosen regulatory approach.

## Legal Principles

- Under 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a)(1), VA may require that benefits be sought through a “specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary,” supporting regulatory authority to mandate standardized claim forms.
- A final agency rule satisfies APA notice-and-comment when it is a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule and the comments received, providing fair notice of the subjects and potential regulatory outcomes.
- Under arbitrary-and-capricious review, an agency action is upheld when the agency articulates a rational connection between the problem identified and the solution adopted, even if the policy choice is contested.
- VA may revise procedures for preserving effective dates, including replacing informal-claim practices, so long as the replacement mechanism is lawful and reasonably implemented within statutory limits.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit upheld VA’s 2014 standardized-forms and intent-to-file regulation, finding it properly promulgated under the APA, authorized by the statutory scheme governing veterans’ benefits claims, and supported by a reasoned agency explanation.


Veterans Justice Grp., LLC v. Sec’y of Veterans Affs., 818 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016)