Pending Legislation Before the Subcommittee (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (19 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
April 10, 2024 |
| Report Number |
TE10104 |
| Report Type |
Testimony |
| Authors |
Daniel T. Shedd |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
My name is Daniel Shedd, and I am a legislative attorney in the American Law Division of the
Congressional Research Service (CRS). Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the proposed
legislation entitled the “Veterans Appeals Efficiency Act of 2024” that is before the
Subcommittee today. My testimony will focus on two aspects of the proposed legislation: (1) the
aggregation of agency adjudications and (2) the authority of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(CAVC) to issue limited remands.
The first section of this testimony provides an overview of agency aggregation of adjudications that
involve claims with substantially similar questions of law or fact. The proposed legislation would
specifically authorize the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) to aggregate certain appeals that are
pending before the Board. The proposed legislation provides that “[i]f the Chairman of the Board
determines that more than one appeal involves substantially similar questions of law or fact, the Chairman
may aggregate such appeals for review.”1 Further, the proposed legislation would require the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) to seek an independent assessment from a federally funded research and
development center (FFRDC) regarding the BVA’s authority to aggregate appeals with substantially
similar questions of law or fact.2 To assist the Subcommittee in evaluating these provisions, this written
statement will (1) provide an overview of how other executive agencies and non-Article III courts have
implemented aggregation procedures for claims or appeals; (2) summarize commentators’ views as to the
potential benefits and drawbacks related to the aggregation of claims; and (3) provide analysis of how
courts and other jurists have evaluated whether an agency has the authority to aggregate adjudications.
Finally, it will briefly review how the CAVC has implemented class action procedures in the context of
appeals from BVA decisions.
Next, this testimony will provide an overview of the CAVC’s use of limited remands. The proposed
legislation would require the CAVC to retain jurisdiction over a matter that it remands to the BVA when it
finds that the Board failed to address an issue raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence
of record. This section of the testimony provides a brief overview of limited remands. It then reviews the
CAVC’s authority to issue limited remands in light of the court’s 1995 decision in Cleary v. Brown, which
held that the CAVC lacked authority to retain jurisdiction over matters remanded to the BVA for a new
adjudication.3 This testimony then discusses the CAVC’s departure from that holding in more recent cases
such as Skaar v. Wilkie, where the court determined that it has authority to issue limited remands in
certain circumstances.
4 Finally, the written statement concludes by examining the text of the proposed
legislation in light of the CAVC’s history of issuing limited remands.
