FORD v. VETERANS GUARDIAN VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JENNIFER FORD, ERIC BEARD,
and BRIAN OTTERS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly
situated,
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:23-CV-756
)
VETERANS GUARDIAN VA
CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC,
)
)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge.
On behalf of military veterans like the plaintiffs, Jennifer Ford, Eric Beard, and
Brian Otters, Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC, prepares claims to obtain or
increase disability compensation for presentation to the Veterans Administration. It
charges a contingency fee for its services. For several policy reasons, federal law
prohibits anyone not accredited by the VA from acting as an agent in preparing or
presenting such claims to the VA and imposes limits on the fees such accredited entities
can charge. The plaintiffs contend that Guardian violates federal law by offering these
services without accreditation and that it charges and collects illegal fees in violation of
the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the North Carolina
Debt Collection Act.
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 1 of 20

2
The evidence is undisputed that Guardian is not accredited, that on behalf of
veterans it prepares claims forms, that in those forms it presents disability claims for
decision by the VA, and that it charges fees for doing so. These actions violate federal
law. The Court therefore grants the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion to this extent
and likewise denies Guardian’s summary judgment motion to this extent.
This ruling does not resolve all issues presented in the summary judgment
motions. Those remaining issues will be addressed by separate order as time permits.
I. 	Summary Judgment Standard
A “court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter
of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A genuine dispute of material fact exists “if the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). In analyzing a summary judgment
motion, courts “must construe all facts and reasonable inferences in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party.” Bandy v. City of Salem, 59 F.4th 705, 709 (4th Cir.
2023). The moving party has the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of any
material issue of fact; once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving
party must come forward with evidentiary material demonstrating the existence of a
genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial. Id. at 709–10; see also Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
“When faced with cross-motions for summary judgment, the court must review
each motion separately on its own merits to determine whether either of the parties
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 2 of 20

3
deserves judgment as a matter of law.” Rossignol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523 (4th
Cir. 2003) (cleaned up); see also Coal. for TJ v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 68 F.4th 864, 878
(4th Cir. 2023). “When considering each individual motion, the court must take care to
resolve all factual disputes and any competing, rational inferences in the light most
favorable to the party opposing that motion.” Rossignol, 316 F.3d at 523 (cleaned up).
II. 	Overview of the Relevant Statutes and Regulations
Federal law provides that “no individual may act as an agent or attorney in the
preparation, presentation, or prosecution of any claim under laws administered by the
Secretary unless such individual has been recognized for such purposes by the Secretary.”
38 U.S.C. § 5901(a).1 Federal law also prohibits agents from charging or collecting a fee
in connection with the filing of an initial disability claim for benefits before the Veterans
Administration. Id. § 5904(c)(1). Subject to statutory and regulatory reasonableness
provisions, id. § 5904(a)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 14.636(e), agents and attorneys may charge fees
for work later in the claims process. 38 U.S.C. § 5904(a)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 14.636(c)(1)(i)
(“Agents and attorneys may charge claimants or appellants for representation provided
after . . . notice of an initial decision on the claim . . . .”).
Chapter 59 does not explicitly define “agent.” The regulations define an “agent”
in terms of the standards and qualifications for accreditation. 38 C.F.R. § 14.627(c)
(“Agent means a person who has met the standards and qualifications outlined in [38
1 See also 38 C.F.R. § 14.629(b)(1) (“No individual may assist claimants in the preparation,
presentation, and prosecution of claims for VA benefits as an agent or attorney unless he or she
has first been accredited by VA for such purpose.”).
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 3 of 20

4
C.F.R.] § 14.629(b).”); id. § 14.629(b) (listing requirements for accreditation, including
applications, determination of character and fitness, a written examination, and
continuing education).
III. 	Undisputed Facts
Neither Guardian nor its employees are accredited by the VA to act as agents in the
preparation, presentation, or prosecution of VA disability claims. Doc. 73-2 at 29; Doc.
52-1 at p. 3 ¶ 1(e). Guardian assists veterans seeking to obtain VA disability benefits for
the first time (initial claims) and veterans seeking to increase their VA disability benefits
(non-initial claims). Doc. 73-2 at 9; Doc. 52-1 at p. 10 ¶ 3(d).
Guardian follows standard practices and policies when working with its clients on
their VA disability claims. Doc. 73-2 at 11–12, 18, 23, 26; see also Doc. 52-1 at p. 4 ¶ 2;
Doc. 123 at ¶ 1. All of Guardian’s clients sign a consulting service agreement when they
begin working with Guardian. Doc. 123 at ¶ 3; Doc. 52-1. Thereafter, in summary,
Guardian assists in gathering information and identifying the types of benefits for which
a client may be eligible; it drafts documents and fills out the forms used to seek such
benefits; it emails the forms to the client for review; and once the client approves the
packet, Guardian prints the form and mails it to the client with a postage-paid envelope
addressed to the VA. See infra at 4–6.
To start the process, Guardian works with clients to obtain their medical and
military service records. Doc. 73-2 at 9, 13; see also Doc. 52-1 at p. 4 ¶ 2. It gives
clients an extensive questionnaire that it developed, and it uses the completed
questionnaire to help identify symptoms and issues for claim packets. Doc 73-2 at 9. It
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 4 of 20

5
reviews the client’s records and materials to “help determine . . . what types of claims the
veteran may or may not be eligible for.” Id. at 9, 14; see also Doc. 52-1 at p. 4 ¶ 2. It
identifies additional medical or lay evidence needed to support the claims. Doc. 73-2 at
13–14; see also Doc. 52-1 at p. 4 ¶ 2. It offers referrals to medical providers to support
claims. Doc. 52-1 at p. 4 ¶ 2. It makes medical appointments for clients. Doc. 106-2 at
7; Doc. 106-9 at 27; Doc. 106-16 at 13. It may “conduct medical research.” Doc. 73-2 at
9; see also Doc. 52-1 at p. 4 ¶ 2. It “assist[s] in completing the forms, providing
evidence, [and] . . . putting the claim packet together.” Doc. 73-2 at 9, 14–15; see also
Doc. 52-1 at p. 4 ¶ 2.
Guardian is responsible for “drafting the [claim] information [and] typing it into
the fillable VA disability form.” Doc. 73-2 at 11–12, 15–16. It then emails the assembled
claim packets to clients for their review. Doc. 123 at ¶ 1. Guardian does not include its
name anywhere in the claim packet. Doc. 73-2 at 18–19.
After clients review and agree with the claim packet as prepared by Guardian,
Guardian prints hard copies of the claim packets and mails them to the clients with an
instruction letter and a stamped envelope addressed to the VA. Id. at 17, 20, 23; see also
Doc. 106-2 at 7. Guardian pays for the postage to the VA and adds “sign here” labels to
the packets. Doc. 73-2 at 20, 22–23. The instruction letter explains to the client “what
they’re receiving, what they need to do, [and] what the steps are to submit the claim in
their own name, on their own behalf.” Id. at 23. Guardian’s cover letter instructs clients
“not to identify that the veteran has been working with Veterans Guardian.” Id. at 24–25.
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 5 of 20

6
Clients are responsible for “validating that everything in there is truthful,” and
clients make the final decision on whether to submit the claim. Id. at 17. If they choose
to submit the claim packet, clients sign the forms and mail the packet to the VA. Id.
Guardian does not directly submit the packet to the VA. Id. at 17, 19. Guardian tracks
the mailed packet to the client, id. at 19, and from the client to the VA. Id. at 25.
Guardian’s consulting service agreement states that “Guardian is not a VA
accredited agent,” “is not the client’s representative to the VA,” and “does not file claims
or any other documents or responses with the VA on behalf of the client.” Doc. 52-1 at p.
3 ¶ 1(e). The agreement details that “[t]he client is solely responsible for any and all
submissions of claims, documents or responses to the VA either as their own
representative or through a VA accredited agent.” Id. The agreement states that “there
are completely free services available to veterans to support the filing of claims for VA
benefits.” Id. at p. 3 ¶ 1(d). Guardian’s clients also sign an acknowledgement titled
“Veteran’s Right to Choose: Your Claim, Your Choice” that provides the same disclosures
about free services with other organizations and the fact that Guardian is not accredited.
See e.g., Doc. 106-4 at 2.
Guardian’s client agreement requires clients to notify Guardian of VA decisions
and to “provide copies of any and all correspondence received from the VA to include
Rating Decision Letters within two days of receipt.” Doc. 52-1 at p. 6 ¶ 2(b)(9). As a
standard practice, Guardian receives the decision letters from its clients, but not every
client sends their letter. Doc. 73-2 at 28. Guardian’s clients can, and sometimes do,
instruct the VA to fax their rating decision letter to Guardian. Doc. 55-3 at 48, 50; Doc.
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 6 of 20

7
113-2; Doc. 125 at 23–24. Guardian can confirm its clients’ disability income increases
by calling the VA pay verification phone number and inputting the client’s social security
number and birthdate. Doc. 55-3 at 50. During the class period, Guardian employees
called the VA pay verification phone number over 250,000 times. See Docs. 122, 122-1.
Guardian determines its clients’ fees using their rating decision letters, Doc. 73-2
at 27, supplemented by information obtained from calls to the VA’s pay verification
number. Doc. 55-3 at 50. It emails invoices to clients after they receive their rating
decision letters. Doc. 73-2 at 34.
Guardian works with clients on a contingent basis and only charges a fee when
clients receive an increase in their monthly disability benefit. See e.g., Doc. 52-1 at p. 5
¶ 2(a)(6). It charges clients five times the increase in their monthly compensation. Id. at
p. 9 ¶ 3(c). It provides options to pay either a lump sum with a 10% discount or monthly
scheduled payments. Id. at pp. 10–11 ¶ 4(d); see also Doc. 52-2 at 3, 5, 8, 11.
The plaintiffs’ testimony confirms Guardian’s standard process for assisting
clients. Ms. Ford testified that Guardian compiled her claim by sending her claim packet
in an envelope prepped and ready to go. Doc. 106-2 at 7–8, 14, 34; see also Doc. 73-8 at
¶¶ 15–21, 26–30. She “gave them access to [her] records, and they put it all together.”
Doc. 106-2 at 7. Guardian set up her doctors’ appointments. Id. at 7. Mr. Otters testified
that the process followed the same way for him, see Doc. 106-16 at 14–16; see also Doc.
73-10 at ¶¶ 15–21, as did Mr. Beard. See Doc. 106-9 at 17, 21; see also Doc. 73-9 at
¶¶ 16–22.
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 7 of 20

8
Guardian assisted Ms. Ford with two non-initial VA disability claims. Doc. 73-8
at ¶¶ 7–31; Doc. 52-2 at 3, 5. As a result of the first claim submitted with Guardian’s
assistance, her disability rating increased from 60% to 70%. Doc. 73-8 at ¶ 22; Doc. 52-2
at 3; Doc. 73-5 at 4. Her monthly compensation increased from $1,585.03 to $1,962.95
for a total increase of $377.92. Doc. 52-2 at 3. Guardian charged her a fee of $1,880,
five times her total increase rounded down to the nearest $10 increment. Id. She paid the
entire invoice. Doc. 73-8 at ¶ 25. As a result of the second claim submitted with
Guardian’s assistance, her disability rating increased from 70% to 80%. Id. at ¶ 31; Doc.
52-2 at 5. Her monthly compensation increased from $2,133.06 to $2,471.15 for a total
increase of $338.09. Doc. 52-2 at 5. Guardian charged her a fee of $1,690, five times her
total increase rounded down to the nearest $10 increment. Id. She paid the entire
invoice. Doc. 73-8 at ¶ 34.
Guardian assisted Mr. Otters with a non-initial VA disability claim. Doc. 73-10 at
¶ 22; Doc. 52-2 at 11. As a result of the claim, his disability rating increased from 70% to
90%, and his monthly compensation increased from $1,977.06 to $2,576.39 for a total
increase of $599.33. Doc. 73-10 at ¶¶ 22, 24; Doc. 52-2 at 11. Guardian charged him a
fee of $2,990, five times his total increase rounded down to the nearest $10 increment.
Doc. 52-2 at 11. He paid the entire invoice. Doc. 73-10 at ¶ 25.
Guardian assisted Mr. Beard with an initial VA disability claim. Doc. 73-9 at 3, 6;
Doc. 52-2 at 8. As a result of the claim, he received a disability rating of 100% and
monthly compensation of $4,272.80. Doc. 73-9 at ¶ 23; Doc. 52-2 at 8; Doc. 73-5 at 5.
Guardian charged him a fee of $21,360, five times his total compensation increase
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 8 of 20

9
rounded down to the nearest $10 increment. Doc. 52-2 at 8. He paid $19,224 and has an
outstanding balance of $2,136. Doc. 73-9 at ¶ 27.
It is undisputed that Guardian charges “more” for initial claims than accredited
agents because Guardian charges fees for initial claims, Doc. 52-1 at pp. 8–9 ¶ 3, and
accredited agents cannot charge anything for initial claims. See 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)(1).
Guardian acknowledges that if it were accredited it could not charge fees for assisting
veterans file initial VA disability claims. Doc. 73-2 at 29–33.
Because Guardian does not include its name and involvement in claim preparation
and presentation in the claim forms it prepares and instructs veterans to similarly exclude
that fact, the VA does not review Guardian’s fees for non-initial claims under the VA’s
reasonableness requirements that apply to the fees charged by accredited agents. See 38
C.F.R. § 14.636(e). Those regulations provide that “[f]ees which exceed 33 1/3 percent
of any past-due benefits awarded shall be presumed to be unreasonable.” Id.
§ 14.636(f)(1).
IV. 	Overview of the Plaintiffs’ Claims
All of the plaintiffs’ claims depend on the factual assertion that Guardian is acting
as an agent in the preparation or presentation of claims to the VA and on the legal
proposition that doing so for a fee and without accreditation violates federal law. This
order addresses these factual and legal predicates to Guardian’s liability on the state law
claims asserted by the classes.
If the plaintiffs prevail on these legal and factual predicate questions, other
elements are required to prevail on their state law claims and there are other issues
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 9 of 20

10
presented in the summary judgment briefing. This order does not address those larger
liability questions, which will be addressed in a later order.
V. 	Acting as an Agent
When courts interpret a statute, they start with the text. Sw. Airlines Co. v. Saxon,
596 U.S. 450, 457 (2022). They “begin by considering whether the language at issue has
a plain and unambiguous meaning.” Yates v. Mun. Mortg. & Equity, LLC, 744 F.3d 874,
895 (4th Cir. 2014). Here, the statutory framework and language both show a clear
purpose of insuring that claimants are assisted only by knowledgeable, approved agents
and attorneys and that claimants are protected against unreasonable fees and predatory
practices. See 38 USC §§ 5901–5904; see also Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki,
562 U.S. 428, 431–32 (2011). In this context, the statute says that “no individual may act
as an agent or attorney in the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of any claim”
unless recognized by the VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5901(a). Because Guardian does exactly that
without such recognition by the VA, it engages in conduct prohibited by the statute.
A. 	Anyone Who Assists Veterans with Preparation or Presentation of a
Claim for a Fee is an Agent and Must Be Accredited by the VA.
In Title 38 of the United States Code, Congress has established a comprehensive
statutory system governing benefits for veterans. The general provisions for making
claims are in Chapter 51, id. § 5100 et seq., and the provisions governing who can assist
veterans with their claims are in Chapter 59. Id. § 5901 et seq.
In Chapter 59, Congress requires that “no individual may act as an agent or
attorney in the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of any claim under laws
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 10 of 20

11
administered by the Secretary unless such individual has been recognized for such
purposes by the Secretary.” Id. § 5901(a). The statute explicitly authorizes the Secretary
to recognize three categories of people to prepare, present, and prosecute claims before
the VA.
First, the Secretary may recognize representatives of veterans’ organizations who
are approved to prepare, present, and prosecute claims for no fee. Id. § 5902. Second,
“the Secretary may recognize any individual for the preparation, presentation, and
prosecution of any particular claim for benefits” for no fee and pursuant to a power of
attorney. Id. § 5903. Third, under certain conditions, “the Secretary may recognize any
individual as an agent or attorney for the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of
claims.” Id. § 5904.
To be recognized by the Secretary under this third option, the agents and attorneys
must be qualified and competent to assist claimants; meet the Secretary’s training rules,
qualifications, and standards; and comply with the Secretary’s “reasonable restrictions on
the amount of fees” charged as detailed in regulations. Id. These restrictions on fees are
consistent with the express congressional recognition of the potential for predatory
practices by unaccredited and unapproved entities. Id. § 5901(b).
The organization of Chapter 59 shows an explicit congressional intent to limit
those who assist veterans in the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of claims to
those who are approved by the Secretary in one of three ways: as an approved group’s
representative who charges no fee, as an individual power of attorney who charges no
fee, or as agents or attorneys who charge only reasonable fees. Within this statutory
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 11 of 20

12
framework, anyone who prepares, presents, or prosecutes VA disability claims2 must be
recognized and accredited by the VA in order to do such work and anyone who does this
work for a fee on behalf of a veteran is an “agent.”
The regulations confirm the interpretation that an agent is anyone who “assists”
claimants in the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of claims for VA benefits for a
fee. 38 C.F.R. § 14.629(b)(1). The regulations provide the following definitions. See id.
§ 14.627. “Accreditation means the authority granted by VA to representatives, agents,
and attorneys to assist claimants in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of
claims for VA benefits.” Id. § 14.627(a). “Agent means a person who has met the
standards and qualifications outlined in § 14.629(b).” Id. § 14.627(c). Section 14.629(b)
details the agent accreditation requirement for assisting claimants, the process to become
accredited, and the conditions for accreditation. Id. § 14.629(b). “Claim means
application made under title 38 U.S.C., and implementing directives, for entitlement to
VA benefits, reinstatement, continuation, or increase of benefits, or the defense of a
proposed agency adverse action concerning benefits.” Id. § 14.627(h). The regulations
also detail recognition, standards of conduct, and discipline for agents and attorneys. Id.
§§ 14.626–14.637.
The regulations are consistent with the statute. The organization of
§ 14.629(b)(1), like the organization of the statute, shows that an individual acts as an
agent by preparing, presenting, or prosecuting claims for a fee. Id. § 14.629(b)(1). The
2 Section 5901(a) uses the disjunctive “or”.
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 12 of 20

13
structure and language of the regulations are designed to restrict preparing, presenting,
and prosecuting claims to those who are qualified and competent and who either charge
no fee or a reasonable fee.3 And § 14.627(c)’s definition of “agent” requires that a person
preparing, presenting, or prosecuting claims must meet the requirements of § 14.629(b).
The VA advises that:
Preparing a benefits claim generally includes, but is not limited to, consulting
with or giving advice to a claimant or potential claimant in contemplation of
filing a benefits claim, gathering evidence in support of a benefits claim on
behalf of a claimant or potential claimant, or filling out VA forms for their
submission to VA.
Doc. 111-5 at 2. Its view is that “to provide assistance with a claim for VA benefits, even
without charge, a person must be accredited by VA as an agent,” Doc. 73-7 at 3, and that
“Congress requires that an individual be accredited by VA to act as an agent or attorney in
the preparation of a VA claim.” Id. at 8.
In sum, the statute’s text and structure shows that an agent is defined by the
conduct of preparing, presenting, or prosecuting claims and that anyone who does one or
more of these things must fall into one of the statutory categories or it is prohibited from
providing such services. The regulations and the VA itself support that definition.
Guardian asserts that this interpretation of the word “agent” gives rise to
constitutional questions, specifically the question of whether prohibiting it from charging
fees for assisting with initial claims would violate the First Amendment. Doc. 104 at 21.
3 Here, because the VA regulations are consistent with and appropriately implement the
statutory requirements, the Court cites to them as further support for the Court’s interpretation of
the statute. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944).
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 13 of 20

14
Calling upon the canon of constitutional avoidance, it thus contends that the Court should
interpret the word “agent” more narrowly to require activities meeting the common-law
definition of the word agent. Id.
But the canon of constitutional avoidance does not apply unless the text of the
statute is ambiguous. See Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 419 (2019). It “comes into
play only when, after the application of ordinary textual analysis, the statute is found to
be susceptible of more than one construction.” Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 296
(2018) (cleaned up). But § 5901(a) is not ambiguous and ordinary textual analysis does
not give rise to more than one construction. As discussed, the statute directly looks to
actions of preparing, presenting, or prosecuting claims on behalf of a veteran in
describing an agent. See 38 U.S.C. § 5901(a).
Moreover, Guardian’s potential First Amendment argument, to the extent it has
presented one, is weak. The statute governs conduct: preparing claims, presenting those
claims in the required forms, and charging fees. It establishes what is essentially a
licensing system for insuring that those who so act are qualified to perform those services
and do not charge predatory fees. And it does not compel those who are accredited to
deliver any particular government message. “[T]he First Amendment does not prevent
restrictions directed at commerce or conduct from imposing incidental burdens on
speech.” Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 567, (2011); accord Nat’l Inst. of
Fam. & Life Advocs. v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755, 769 (2018).4
4 Guardian relies on only two cases. Doc. 104 at 21–22; Doc. 157 at 1. One is an out-of-
circuit case that analyzed a New Jersey state law, not the federal law. Doc. 104 at 21–22
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 14 of 20

15
Finally, Guardian asserts that the plaintiffs’ reading of the statutes and regulations
would prohibit friends and family from assisting people with claims. Doc. 125 at 11–12,
19. But the regulations provide an exception for a friend or family member assisting on a
single claim for no compensation. See 38 C.F.R. § 14.630. This argument is without
merit.
B. 	Guardian Is An Agent That Prepares and Presents Claims on Behalf of
Class Members for a Fee Without Accreditation.
The evidence is undisputed that Guardian prepares claims on behalf of veterans for
a fee without following the accreditation requirements and without authority from the
VA. It is also undisputed that it presents such claims to the VA on behalf of veterans. As
detailed more thoroughly supra, Guardian creates forms and surveys for veterans to use
in telling Guardian about their relevant experience and potential disabilities, gathers
information from clients and their medical care providers, refers clients to health care
providers it determines might be helpful, and decides how to fill out the forms requesting
benefits and increases in benefits, thus preparing the claim. See, e.g., Doc. 106-2 at 7;
Doc. 106-9 at 13–15, 21; Doc. 106-16 at 14–16; see also supra at 4–5. It advises
veterans on the best way to present the veteran’s claims in those forms, attaches the
exhibits it has gathered and developed to the forms it has filled out, and assembles the
(discussing Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting LLC v. Platkin, 133 F.4th 213 (3d Cir.
2025)). The other is a recent Supreme Court case Chiles v. Salazar, 607 U.S. ___, 146 S. Ct.
1010 (2026), which was directed to content-based regulation of speech and explicitly recognized
that laws regulating conduct with only incidental effect on speech are not subject to strict
scrutiny. Chiles, 146 S. Ct. at 1022–23. Guardian has made no showing that the statute is likely
to violate its First Amendment rights.
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 15 of 20

16
claims packets for submission to the VA, thus presenting the claim in those claims
packets. See, e.g., Doc. 106-2 at 7; Doc. 106-9 at 15-18, 21; Doc. 106-16 at 14–16; see
also supra at 5–6. It does all of this for the client’s benefit, with the client’s permission,
and at the client’s direction. Clients entrust Guardian with confidential medical and
personal information, including their social security numbers and dates of birth. See e.g.,
Doc. 55-3 at 50. Guardian prints the claim packets and sends the completed claim
packets to clients. Doc. 73-2 at 17, 20, 23; see also Doc. 106-2 at 7. All the clients have
to do is review the claim’s form for accuracy, sign at the places marked by Guardian, and
then mail the form, using the postage-paid envelope provided by Guardian. See e.g.,
Doc. 73-2 at 20, 22–23, 25; see also supra at 5–6. Guardian tracks delivery of the claim
packet to the VA. Doc. 73-2 at 25.
In all these activities, the evidence is undisputed that Guardian has the actual
authority from the client to investigate the client’s situation, to obtain information and
develop evidence on the client’s behalf, and to fill out the claim forms and decide what
should go into the claims packets it assembles. These activities constitute the
“preparation” of claims to the VA and the “presentation” of claims to the VA. 38 U.S.C.
§ 5901(a).
As to preparing a claim, the VA’s guidance is consistent. The VA advises that:
Preparing a benefits claim generally includes, but is not limited to, consulting
with or giving advice to a claimant or potential claimant in contemplation of
filing a benefits claim, gathering evidence in support of a benefits claim on
behalf of a claimant or potential claimant, or filling out VA forms for their
submission to VA.
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 16 of 20

17
Doc. 111-5 at 2. Guardian admits that it does those exact actions.5
Guardian contends that it does not prepare or present claims and that it only
provides “consulting” services, as shown by its actions and signed contracts with clients.
See, e.g., Doc. 52-1. First, the label that Guardian attaches to its services is not
controlling; the reality of the work done is what matters. See e.g., Cmty. Worship
Fellowship v. United States, 178 Fed. Cl. 764, 774 (2025) (stating “the compensation
label an organization applies to its payments does not control the analysis” (cleaned up)).
The undisputed evidence shows that Guardian was much more than a “consultant.”6
Second, the fact that clients make the final decision on whether to file and
prosecute a claim prepared by Guardian does not mean that Guardian did not prepare or
present the claim or that Guardian is not an agent. Absent a power of attorney as
authorized under 38 U.S.C. §§ 5902 and 5903, or other extenuating circumstances, the
veteran must sign the claim form and attest to its accuracy. See e.g., Doc. 108-3 at 9.
And O’Neill v. Department of Housing & Urban Development, 220 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir.
5 While not determinative, the VA agrees that Guardian acts as an agent by preparing claims.
The VA sent Guardian two cease and desist letters in January 2019, and August 2024. Doc. 73-7.
The letters point out that Guardian was acting as an unaccredited agent in assisting clients with
VA disability claims. Id. at 3 (“[T]o provide assistance with a claim for VA benefits, even
without charge, a person must be accredited by VA as an agent . . . .”); id. at 8 (“Congress
requires that an individual be accredited by VA to act as an agent or attorney in the preparation
of a VA claim.”).
6 Indeed, Guardian repeatedly emphasizes that its work helps veterans obtain benefits they
would not obtain without its help, or at least sooner than they otherwise would, thus seeking to
take credit for the results of the claims it prepares and presents. Yet it inconsistently contends
that it is not responsible for those claims when it comes to complying with federal law. It is
disingenuous to take the credit for good results achieved by its work if it was not responsible for
preparing the claims.
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 17 of 20

18
2000), the case on which Guardian relies, Doc. 104 at 16, itself notes that in an agency
relationship the “principal has the right to control the conduct of the agent with respect to
matters entrusted to him.” O’Neill, 220 F.3d at 1360. That the client may make some of
the decisions related to the way the claim is presented and that the client makes the
ultimate decision on filing does not mean that Guardian is not an agent or does not
prepare or present claims, nor is it sufficient to give rise to a disputed question of fact.
Guardian contends that because it does not affirmatively act on plaintiffs’ behalf
before the VA or have a power of attorney, it is not an agent. Doc. 104 at 19–20.7 But
nothing in the statute requires that someone do either of those things in order to be an
agent. The reference in the statute to powers of attorney concerns representatives and
individuals who prepare and present claims without charging a fee, not agents who
charge a fee for such work. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5902(b)(1), 5903(a).
Guardian also relies on O’Neill to support its contention that there can be no
agency relationship when the agent does not have actual or apparent authority to act on
the claimant’s behalf. Doc. 104 at 16. But Guardian does have such actual authority. As
discussed infra, it is undisputed that for a fee, Guardian has actual authority to investigate
and develop evidence, to make medical appointments, and to fill out the claim forms.
Those are the exact steps needed to prepare a claim to the VA. It is undisputed that
7 Guardian points to its Chief Operating Officer’s deposition testimony about “representation
provided by accredited agents.” Doc 104 at 20. But he states, “I can’t speak directly to what
they do.” Doc. 106-1 at 7. And then he states what he thinks accredited agents do. See e.g., id.
at 7, 9–10, 16. In any event, Guardian does not cite to a source supporting his speculation that
agents receive power of attorney and his testimony expressing his opinions about who is and is
not an agent is not material.
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 18 of 20

19
Guardian has the actual authority to compile the forms and exhibits into a persuasive
presentation requiring only the veteran’s signature and delivery to the VA, using stamped
pre-addressed envelopes that Guardian provides and that Guardian tracks. These are the
steps needed to present a claim to the VA. These are the acts that make Guardian an
“agent” in this statutory scheme.
VI. 	Conclusion
Federal law and the undisputed facts establish that Guardian acts as an agent on
behalf of class members in the preparation of VA disability claims and in the presentation
of VA disability claims. The undisputed facts show that Guardian is not accredited, as
federal law requires of those who prepare or present claims on behalf of veterans, and
that it charges and collects fees for those services in violation of federal law. To that
extent, the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion will be granted, and Guardian’s
summary judgment motion will be denied.
The Court reserves ruling on the remaining issues presented in the summary
judgment motions. Those issues will be addressed by later order as time permits.
It is ORDERED that:
1. 	The plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, Doc. 109, is GRANTED in
part and it is deemed established for purposes of this case that the
defendant, Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC, acts as an
unaccredited agent on behalf of the class members in preparing and
presenting initial and non-initial claims to the Veterans Administration, in
violation of federal law.
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 19 of 20

20
2. 	To the extent Guardian contends it is entitled to judgment in its favor
because it is not an agent, its motion for summary judgment, Doc. 103, is
DENIED.
3. 	The parties need not yet comply with the deadlines in the scheduling order,
Doc. 151 at ¶¶ 2–3, tied to a summary judgment decision.
4. 	Other scheduling deadlines remain in place for the time being.
This the 20th day of May, 2026.
__________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA Document 175 Filed 05/20/26 Page 20 of 20