A Vietnam veteran named Andrew Laffon joined with several law firms to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a new VA rule.

The rule requires medical examiners to consider the effects of medication on a service connected condition when setting disability ratings.

The measure was issued Tuesday as an interim final rule and went into effect immediately. It clarifies how medical management of health conditions should be weighed in disability determinations.

The rule was written in response to court decisions dating to 2012 that limited consideration of medication effects by the VA’s claims adjudications board.

Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement

Secretary Doug Collins argued that without the ruling the VA would face a massive administrative burden and would pay out disability compensation based on levels veterans are not actually experiencing.

Under the rule, examiners must assess the veteran’s actual level of functional impairment and cannot simply estimate improvements from medications. If a medication lowers disability, the rating follows the lower level.

The move drew sharp reactions from veterans and advocacy groups who say the rule punishes veterans who pursue medical treatment.

They also say it was drafted in secrecy and published as a fait accompli without appropriate input from those affected or experts in the field. The lawsuit seeks an immediate injunction to the rule.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

The plaintiffs argue that the rule will cause economic harm to veterans and firms that represent them. They also say that it is contrary to a long standing policy of ruling in favor of the veteran when a dispute arises.

“This court should … set aside the interim final rule as it was made without observance of procedure as required by law, or as being arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with the law,” wrote Paul Jennings, the plaintiffs’ attorney.

The comment underscores the frustration many veterans feel when policy shifts are announced with limited discussion.

The process continues even as the rule is deemed final by the VA. The agency is taking comments from the public for a 60 day period and will consider the feedback. By Thursday, 48 hours after the ruling was posted, the regulation had received nearly 9,000 comments.

Wesley McCauley, an attorney with United Veterans Disability LLC, and a plaintiff in the suit, said he has heard from veterans who are worried that their disability compensation will be reduced.

In a post on his firm’s site, McCauley sought to reassure them, noting that the rule affects veterans who file new claims or appeals after the date the regulation was published, on Feb. 17. And he urged all to continue taking their medication. He promised also to continue fighting.

“If its swift action Secretary Collins wants, we gave him just that. We didn’t ‘monitor the situation,’ we didn’t ‘study the matter closely.’ No, instead, in less than 48 hours since this rule took effect, we filed a Petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,” McCauley wrote. “We didn’t play around, we didn’t study the situation, we took swift and immediate action.”

Support for the move does not come from all corners. Yet the case fits a broader political frame in which a strong defense of veterans benefits lines up with a call for clear and efficient government. Supporters of President Trump have already signaled that they expect accountability at agencies charged with veteran affairs.

They see Secretary of War Pete Hegseth as a capable steward of national service matters who will insist on thorough, transparent processes. In their view, reforms like this rule must balance compassionate care with fiscal prudence so veterans receive what they deserve without creating unnecessary waste.

The VA contends the new rule will help ensure benefits reflect veterans’ real, day to day lives. Opponents argue that the measure could penalize veterans who depend on medications to function and sleep.

The administration maintains the change is necessary to prevent payments based on symptoms that medications do not permanently erase.

Supporters say the approach is consistent with a prudent, results oriented management of federal programs, and they point to a broader commitment to accountability.

As the legal fight unfolds, veterans and their lawyers remain determined to press their case.

The outcome could redefine how treatment, medication, and daily living influence disability ratings. In the meantime, the broader public will watch closely to see whether the courts will uphold a policy that could recalibrate disability compensation across thousands of claims.

Domestic policy debates about veterans benefits have seldom been quiet, and this latest confrontation is likely to draw more attention in the weeks ahead as lawmakers and the administration weigh their next moves.

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.