⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Federal Circuit hears Allison versus Collins. Dixie Allison is continuing her late husband’s claims for disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. An Army veteran, he sought compensation for heart and lung conditions, vascular disease, and diabetes that he believed were connected to his service. An earlier Board denial relied partly on an assumption that he would have reported these problems during service. In 2022, the Veterans Court approved the parties’ agreed request to send the claims back because the Board had not cited independent medical evidence for that assumption. That is the joint motion for partial remand mentioned in the argument. The Board changed its reasoning but again denied the claims. In 2024, the Veterans Court upheld the denial, concluding that the Board had substantially complied with the remand. This appeal focuses on that court’s assessment of compliance with its own instructions. You will hear “de novo” fact-finding: deciding facts anew, rather than reviewing the Board’s findings. Section seventy-two sixty-one of Title thirty-eight restricts the Veterans Court from doing that. The question is whether its remand-compliance review crossed that line.

Allison v. Collins (No. 25-1394) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 7, 2026.