The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has approved a class action settlement that addresses errors in the processing of veterans' appeals. This decision affects veterans and their families who had their appeals wrongly closed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The ruling ensures that these individuals will have their appeals reactivated and provides a clearer process for handling similar cases in the future.
The case, titled Mark Freund v. Douglas A. Collins (Docket No. 21-4168), began when petitioners J. Roni Freund, a veteran, and Mary S. Mathewson, the surviving spouse of veteran Marvin Mathewson, filed a petition seeking relief from the VA. They claimed that the VA had erroneously closed their pending administrative appeals due to an automated function in the Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System (VACOLS). This closure affected many veterans and their families, prompting Freund and Mathewson to seek class certification to represent others in similar situations.
The dispute escalated as the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus, which is a court order compelling the VA to take action. After oral arguments and initial rulings, the court dismissed their petition, stating that their individual claims were moot because the VA had reactivated their appeals. However, the petitioners appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that the case was not moot and that the class claims met the necessary standards for certification.
On August 20, 2024, the Federal Circuit vacated the lower court's decision, stating that the court had abused its discretion in denying class certification. The Federal Circuit found that the commonality and adequacy of representation requirements were satisfied, and it directed the lower court to address the superiority requirement for class certification. This ruling allowed the case to return to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for further proceedings.
After several rounds of negotiations, on December 16, 2025, the parties jointly moved to certify a class and appoint class counsel. They also submitted a proposed settlement agreement that included a process for auditing VA files to locate appeals that were wrongly closed and procedures for reactivating those appeals. On March 18, 2026, the court certified the class, defined as all claimants with an appeal file in VACOLS that had been closed between December 12, 1990, and February 6, 2025, due to a lack of timely filed Substantive Appeals.
The court ordered that notice of the proposed settlement agreement be provided to class members. By May 21, 2026, the parties confirmed that class notice had been effectuated, and they complied with the 30-day period for written objections. During this period, the court received four written responses, three of which were from individuals seeking to opt out of the class. However, the court noted that the settlement agreement contained no provision for opting out, meaning that all class members would be bound by the agreement.
One true objection was raised regarding the adequacy and fairness of the proposed settlement. The objector suggested amendments to the agreement, including allocating a portion of the Board of Veterans' Appeals docket to the class and adjusting backpay for inflation. The court, however, ruled that these amendments were unnecessary and that the settlement was fair and reasonable as it stood. The court stated, "We conclude that the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate."
In summary, the court's approval of the settlement means that veterans and their families affected by the VA's errors in closing appeals will have their cases reactivated. This ruling could set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future, ensuring that veterans receive the benefits and recognition they deserve.
Looking ahead, the approved settlement will provide a structured process for reactivating wrongly closed appeals, which could help many veterans and their families. There may be potential for appeals regarding specific aspects of the settlement, but the court's ruling is a significant step forward in addressing the systemic issues within the VA's appeals process.