Scott v. McDonough

On March 19, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Scott v. McDonough, a case arising from a dispute over veterans disability benefits. Petitioner John Scott, a Gulf War veteran, challenged the Department of Veterans Affairs denial of his claim for service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder. Scott argued the VA applied an improperly stringent evidentiary standard and failed to adequately consider lay evidence. The VA, represented by Secretary Denis McDonough, maintained its decision was supported by substantial evidence. The case reached the Supreme Court following a split in the lower courts regarding the proper interpretation of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule under 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). The Court examined whether the Federal Circuit erred in affirming the VA’s rejection of competent lay testimony corroborating the veteran’s in-service stressor accounts.

The Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit, holding that the lower courts had impermissibly heightened the evidentiary burden on veterans. The Court clarified that under the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, lay evidence in equipoise must be weighed favorably for the claimant, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

The central dispute was whether the Veterans Court and Federal Circuit properly interpreted the statutory benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine, specifically regarding the weight that must be accorded to lay witness evidence when the record contains both supporting and opposing medical opinions concerning a veteran’s claim for PTSD benefits.

The decision was hailed by veterans advocacy groups as a landmark victory, significantly lowering barriers for veterans seeking disability compensation for mental health conditions by reinforcing the pro-claimant nature of the VA adjudicatory system and prompting legislative calls for more comprehensive VA training on evaluating lay testimony.