A federal court rules Veterans Guardian violated federal law charging veterans for claims help
Three veterans — Jennifer Ford, Eric Beard and Brian Otters — sued Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC in 2023, arguing it charged illegal fees for VA disability claims help without VA accreditation. On May 20, 2026, Chief District Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted the plaintiffs partial summary judgment, ruling that Veterans Guardian's conduct — preparing and presenting claims to the VA without accreditation, for a fee — violates federal law. The court had already certified three classes of affected veterans in January 2026. Remedies and the plaintiffs' remaining North Carolina state-law claims were not yet decided as of the ruling, and an appeal is considered likely.
- Year
- 2026
- Where
- United States
- Outcome
- Ongoing
- Reported loss
- $25,920
- Victims
- Not stated in the sources
- Schemes
- VA claims shark scams
- Last reviewed
- 2026-09-18
The facts, as recorded
- Case No. 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA, filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
- Veterans Guardian charges a contingency fee of five times a client's monthly disability compensation increase, offering either a lump-sum payment with a 10% discount or a monthly payment plan.
- Jennifer Ford was charged $1,880 for a claim that raised her rating from 60% to 70% (a $377.92 monthly increase), then $1,690 for a second claim that raised it from 70% to 80% (a $338.09 monthly increase). She paid both invoices in full.
- Brian Otters was charged $2,990 after his rating rose from 70% to 90%, a $599.33 monthly increase. He paid the invoice in full.
- Eric Beard's claim was an initial disability claim — for which even an accredited agent may charge nothing at all. It resulted in a 100% rating and $4,272.80 in new monthly compensation. Veterans Guardian charged him $21,360, five times that full amount.
- The court held: '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 ruling resolves only the federal-law accreditation question; the plaintiffs' claims under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, and the remedies for the certified classes, remained undecided as of the ruling.
Why this case matters
This is the first federal court ruling on the site’s list to test the “we’re a coach, not a claims agent” defense directly — and reject it. The court’s own words make the standard explicit: what a company actually does controls, not what its contract calls the relationship.
The initial-claim fee
Eric Beard’s case is the sharpest documented example on this page of why the initial-claim rule exists. Federal law bars charging anything for a first VA disability claim, precisely because a new claimant has no basis for comparison and the entire monthly benefit is new money. Veterans Guardian billed him $21,360 — five times his full new monthly compensation, not five times an increase, because there was no prior compensation to increase from.
A win for the veteran, and a bill anyway
Ford’s and Otters’ claims genuinely succeeded: their ratings rose, and the increases were real VA determinations. The fee dispute isn’t about whether Veterans Guardian’s help worked — the court didn’t need to decide that — but about whether an unaccredited company may charge for it at all. It ruled it may not.
The caveat
This ruling decided only the federal accreditation question, on cross-motions for summary judgment. It is not a final judgment: North Carolina state-law claims and the remedies owed to the certified classes remained undecided at the time of this ruling, and Veterans Guardian has not been ordered to pay anything yet. The company is expected to appeal, and no court has yet made findings on the state-law claims or set damages.
Sources
- Memorandum Opinion and Order, Ford v. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-00756-CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C. May 20, 2026). United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Accessed 2026-09-18. Supports: The case number and court, the summary-judgment ruling and its exact language, and the specific per-claim fee and compensation figures for Ford, Otters and Beard.
- Company helping veterans file VA claims broke the law, judge rules. Task & Purpose. Accessed 2026-09-18. Supports: Context that class certification on remedies remained undecided and that an appeal is considered likely.
- Circling the alleged 'claims sharks': Veterans' lawsuit accuses disability claims consultant of breaking federal law. NBC Boston. Accessed 2026-09-18. Supports: The August 23, 2023 filing date and the plaintiffs' names as originally reported.