Class Actions
The National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) uses its expertise in veterans law to change the lives of veterans and their families.
Through class action lawsuits, NVLSP brings claims on behalf of a group of individuals who have been wrongfully denied the benefits they have earned through their service to our country.
In a number of carefully selected matters, NVLSP works with clients and co-counsel to design and prosecute class action challenges and other complex litigation from the ground up, on a wide array of veterans issues, including:
Read a Success Story
Unlawful Air Force Disability Screening System
Watts v. Meink (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia) — NVLSP challenged an Air Force policy which unlawfully denied thousands of current and former Air Force servicemembers access to the military’s disability evaluation system by creating an unauthorized screening process that bypassed the procedures required by Congress and the Department of Defense. On January 16, 2026, the Court certified the class action. The parties then briefed cross motions for summary judgment. On August 7, 2026, the Court ruled from the bench that the pre-screening process violated the Administrative Procedures Act and was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and the Court asked the parties to submit briefing regarding the appropriate remedy.
Navy’s Improper Treatment of Potentially Unfitting Conditions
Springs v. Del Toro (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) — For more than 15 years, the Navy unlawfully denied military medical retirement benefits to thousands of Navy and Marine Corps veterans by refusing to treat certain “Category II” conditions as unfitting by assigning them a disability rating. This policy unjustly deprived those veterans of critical military medical retirement benefits. NVLSP filed suit and the Court certified the class action on March 23, 2022. After briefing on cross motions for summary judgment, the Navy agreed to a remand to review class members’ cases and to treat Category II conditions as unfitting by providing disability ratings to all Navy and Marine Corp veterans medically separated between November 10, 2014 and June 27, 2019 with at least one unrated Category II condition. See NVLSP’s January 2025 FAQs for more information.
Healthcare Coverage for Reservists
Gontarz v. Hegseth (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) – NVLSP and Dechert LLP challenged the Department of Defense’s (DoD) denial of Transitional Assistance Management Program (TAMP) benefits to otherwise eligible servicemembers based on an internal administrative coding requirement. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of Anthony Gontarz and a proposed class of current and former members of a Reserve Component of the United States Armed Forces. On August 10, 2026, in response to the class action complaint, the DoD issued a memo which changed its policy regarding Reservists’ eligibility for TAMP. The memo rescinded the previous coding requirement and specified that prior coding will be “adjusted to implement this change to TAMP eligibility.” The memo directs servicemembers seeking retroactive reimbursement to email the Defense Health Agency at dha.san-diego.healthcare-ops.mbx.thp-eligibility-adj@health.mil.
Designation of Burn Pits as Instrumentalities of War
Smoke et al. v. Driscoll (U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia) – On March 6, 2026, in a case brought by the National Veterans Legal Service Program (NVLSP) and Sidley Austin LLP, a settlement was reached. The suit challenged the Army’s denial of a combat-related designation during the Disability Evaluation System process for disabilities presumed to be caused by exposure to military burn pits under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (“PACT”) Act, 38 U.S.C. § 1120. In the settlement, the Army agreed to issue a new internal policy defining open-air burn pits located in combat zones as “instrumentalities of war” under 26 U.S.C. § 104(b)(3)(B) for purposes of Army disability determinations. The Army has also agreed, as part of the settlement, to review the records of all other veterans who were retired for disabilities presumed to be caused by burn pits under the PACT Act and determine whether their conditions merit combat-related determinations under its new policy. The Army will make reasonable efforts to complete this review of prior determinations for other veterans within six months.
Effective Date of Combat-Related Special Compensation
Soto v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court) On June 12, 2025, in a case brought by the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) and Sidley Austin LLP, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a class of over 9000 disabled veterans had been wrongfully denied their full retroactive Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC). The case challenged the Department of Defense’s (DOD) policy limiting the effective date of CRSC to 6 years prior to the date of application. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the “statutory scheme” for CRSC reflected congressional intent “to forgo a limitations period.” On August 20, 2025, DOD issued Guidance mandating implementation of that decision for veterans whose retroactive CRSC benefits had been limited to 6 years.
On August 20, 2025, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued Interim Guidance to the CRSC Boards to stop applying the Barring Act to limit CRSC benefits. The Interim Guidance further directed the Boards to identify veterans whose retroactive CRSC awards were limited by the Barring Act and to ensure they are compensated according to the effective date in the statute.
However, the August 20, 2025 Interim Guidance and subsequent January 30, 2026 Clarifying Guidance limited retroactive awards for applications filed on or after August 20, 2025. NVLSP and Sidley have filed a class action complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, challenging the policy, on behalf of a class of current and future veterans who have been, or will be, wrongfully denied retroactive CRSC benefits due to the Guidance.
On May 14, 2026, DOD issued new Guidance that retracted the limitations on retroactive CRSC benefits in the August 2025 and January 2026 policies. The May 2026 Guidance requires the branches to adhere to the effective date directed by the CRSC statute and further states that DOD will review the records of veterans impacted by the earlier Guidance and issue revised, corrected decisions.
See NVLSP’s Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).
Exposure to Toxic Herbicides in Vietnam
Nehmer v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) – We represent a nationwide class of Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange and other herbicides and those veterans’ survivors. Thus far, this landmark case has resulted in the delivery of over $7.2 billion in VA compensation benefits to veterans and their survivors. The case originated with VA regulations mandating denial of benefits claims by Vietnam veterans who had diseases associated with exposure to Agent Orange. In 1989, a federal court found the regulation unlawful, and under a 1991 consent decree, class members receive retroactive. The Nehmer consent decree requires VA, whenever it recognizes that the emerging scientific evidence shows that a positive relationship exists between Agent Orange exposure and a new disease, to (a) identify all claims based on the newly recognized disease that were previously denied and then (b) pay disability and death benefits to these claimants, retroactive to the initial date of claim.
NVLSP has continued to represent the class as the VA has recognized additional diseases associated with Agent Orange exposure, including three recognized in 2010 and another three recognized in 2021. In 2020, the federal court also ruled in favor of thousands of so-called Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans and their survivors, holding that the Nehmer consent decree applies to them.
- Vietnam veterans and their survivors who believe that VA has not assigned them the correct effective date for the award of benefits for their Agent Orange-related disease can contact NVLSP’s Nehmer team at the team’s toll-free hotline number – 855-333-0677 or email AgentOrange@nvlsp.org
Family Caregiver Program
Beaudette v. McDonough (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims): On April 19, 2021, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act requires that the Department of Veterans Affairs permit claimants to appeal decisions of the Program for Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board). The court also ordered that VA provide notice to members of the class of their right to appeal Caregiver Program benefits decisions to the Board. As a result, starting on November 17, 2021, the VA began sending notice to hundreds of thousands of severely disabled veterans and their caregivers, and has provided new dispositions in thousands of appeals.
Improper Denials of Medical Retirement
Torres v. Del Toro (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) – NVLSP challenged a Navy policy in effect between September 12, 2016 and June 11, 2018, which unlawfully prevented the Physical Evaluation Board from considering all of a service member’s disabilities. In September 2022, the federal district court ordered the Navy and Marine Corps to provide new medical retirement hearings to approximately 3,700 veterans who were affected by the unlawful policy. See NVLSP’s answers to frequently asked questions (FAQ)s for more information.
Emergency Medical Care Reimbursements
Wolfe v. Wilkie and Kimmel v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) In October 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that VA’s 2018 reimbursement regulation violates the Emergency Care Fairness Act of 2010 (ECFA) that requires VA to reimburse veterans for the emergency medical expenses they incur at non-VA facilities that are not covered by the veteran’s private insurance. Under the court’s order in the case, called Kimmel v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the VA must reimburse veterans for coinsurance costs associated with emergency medical care. This was the latest litigation in NVLSP’s long commitment to advocating on behalf of veterans when the VA declined to reimburse them for emergency medical care.