Veterans Guardian Lawsuit: Class Certified, May 2026 Ruling, Damages

The Veterans Guardian lawsuit is a certified federal class action in North Carolina alleging that Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC illegally charged veterans fees for preparing VA disability claims without being accredited by the Department of Veterans Affairs. On May 20, 2026, U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Eagles ruled that the company’s conduct violated federal law.¹ Remaining claims are set for trial on July 20, 2026. A separate whistleblower fraud case brought by a former employee is also pending against the company and its founders.

What the Class Action Alleges

The case, Ford v. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC (Case No. 1:23-cv-00756), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Named plaintiffs Jennifer Ford, Eric Beard, and Brian Otters are represented by Berger Montague and Varnell and Warwick.²

The core allegation is straightforward. Federal law bars unaccredited entities from charging fees to prepare or present VA disability claims. Veterans Guardian is not VA-accredited. The plaintiffs say the company charged fees anyway, calculated at five times the amount of a veteran’s monthly disability benefit increase. For a veteran going from a zero to a 100 percent rating, that fee could exceed $22,000. One veteran cited in the ruling was charged $21,360.¹ Court materials indicate the company has collected more than $250 million from veterans.

The suit brings claims under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (UDTPA) and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act (NCDCA).³

The May 2026 Ruling Against Veterans Guardian

Judge Eagles granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs on the federal law question. The court found that Veterans Guardian’s work — collecting personal information from veterans, scheduling medical appointments, compiling evidence, and preparing claim packets for submission to the VA — made it an unaccredited “agent” under federal law. The company had argued it operated outside the accreditation system because it functioned as a “consultant” rather than a formal agent. The court rejected that.⁴

The court’s opinion stated: “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.”⁵ The ruling noted that accredited agents are limited by law to charging no more than 20 percent of any back pay a veteran receives.¹

The ruling resolved the federal-law question only. The state-law claims under the UDTPA and NCDCA remain to be decided at trial.

Who Is in the Class

Judge Eagles certified the class on December 30, 2025, defining three groups.⁶ The class period runs from August 23, 2019, through the date of the court’s order approving class notice.

UDTPA Initial Claim Class: veterans who paid Veterans Guardian for preparing an initial VA disability compensation claim under a consulting contract substantially similar to the one filed with the court.
UDTPA Non-Initial Claim Class: veterans who paid for preparing a non-initial claim, such as a request for a rating increase, under the same type of contract.
NCDCA Class: veterans who received an email invoice from Veterans Guardian and made a payment in connection with a VA disability claim.

People affiliated with the company, the presiding judge, and the judge’s family are excluded. The deadline to opt out was May 4, 2026. Class members who wanted to stay in did not need to take any action.⁷

What Damages Are Being Sought

No money has been distributed and no settlement has been reached. If the plaintiffs prevail at trial, they are seeking:

Under the UDTPA claims, three times all amounts class members paid to Veterans Guardian.
Under the NCDCA claims, all amounts paid, plus civil penalties between $500 and $4,000 per violation.
Attorneys’ fees and litigation costs.

American Legal Claims Services, LLC is serving as the claims administrator.⁷

The Company’s Response

Veterans Guardian has said it “strongly denies the allegations in this lawsuit” and will “continue defending ourselves vigorously through the legal process.” Responding to the class notice, the company emphasized that a class notice is not a finding of wrongdoing and said it would address the claims in court.⁸ The company has previously stated its average fee is less than $4,000 and that it charges nothing if a veteran does not receive an increase.⁹

The Separate Whistleblower Fraud Case

A second lawsuit against Veterans Guardian is also pending in the Middle District of North Carolina. United States ex rel. Carico v. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC (Case No. 1:20-cv-00784) is a qui tam action under the federal False Claims Act, filed by Leslie Carico, a former Veterans Guardian employee who worked in documentation control from roughly January to August 2019. The case was originally filed in February 2020 in the Eastern District of New York, transferred to North Carolina later that year, and unsealed in 2025.⁹

The defendants are the company, co-founders Scott Greenblatt and William Taylor, and Dr. Gregory A. Villarosa, a psychologist alleged to have worked closely with the firm.¹⁰ The complaint alleges that the defendants conspired to submit thousands of fraudulent mental health disability claims to the VA to obtain 100 percent “Permanent and Total” ratings for clients, maximizing the company’s commissions.

According to the complaint, Veterans Guardian referred clients to Dr. Villarosa for remote mental health evaluations. Carico alleges the resulting forms were largely auto-populated with diagnoses and symptoms, that assigned ratings were never below 50 percent, and that some examinations were conducted by people on Villarosa’s team who lacked the required qualifications, with the forms then signed by Villarosa. The psychologist allegedly received $295 per consultation.¹¹ Employees allegedly coached veterans to appear “tired and shabby,” to avoid shaving, to use canes or wheelchairs regardless of need, and to use words like “depressed,” “sad,” and “no motivation” during examinations. If scores on depression self-evaluations came in too low, employees allegedly changed them without the veteran’s knowledge.⁹

The U.S. government investigated and declined to intervene in April 2024, so Carico is prosecuting the case on the government’s behalf without DOJ participation.¹²

On September 8, 2025, District Judge William L. Osteen Jr. largely denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Allegations relating to a Paycheck Protection Program loan were dismissed, as were some claims against Taylor individually. The core False Claims Act allegations and conspiracy claims were allowed to proceed against all defendants.¹³

Veterans Guardian has denied the whistleblower’s allegations, stating Carico was terminated for “toxic behavior” and accusing her of “harassment and cyberstalking.” A company spokesperson called the allegations “baseless.”⁹

What Happens Next

The class action is scheduled for trial on July 20, 2026, where the state-law claims and damages will be decided.⁷ The whistleblower case remains active as of June 2026. No trial date has been set, and the court has directed that an initial pretrial conference be scheduled.¹²

Context: A Wider Enforcement Push

Veterans Guardian is one of several companies that have faced legal action for charging veterans for VA claims assistance without accreditation. In January 2026, the Texas Attorney General secured an agreed judgment against VA Claims Insider, LLC, producing more than $6.8 million in debt relief for veterans.¹⁴ In May 2026, the Arizona Attorney General announced a nearly $2 million settlement with VetLink Solutions.¹⁵ The Veterans of Foreign Wars praised the Veterans Guardian ruling and called for stronger federal enforcement against unaccredited claims entities.⁵

1
Task and Purpose. VA Claim Shark Court Ruling
2
CourtListener. Ford v. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC – Parties
3
Berger Montague. Veterans Guardian
4
Law360. NC Co. Filed Veterans Disability Claims Without Accreditation
5
VFW. VFW Applauds Federal Court Ruling Against Veterans Guardian
6
Justia. Ford v. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC
7
Veterans Guardian Class Action. FAQ
8
Veterans Guardian. Veterans Guardian Response to Class Notice
9
The War Horse. VA Benefits Claims Lobbying Congress
10
Cohen Milstein. Veterans Guardian FCA Whistleblower Litigation
11
The War Horse. Whistleblower Complaint
12
CourtListener. United States v. Veterans Guardian VA Claim Consulting, LLC
13
Washington Post. Court Order in United States v. Veterans Guardian
14
Texas Attorney General. Attorney General Ken Paxton Secures Over $6.8 Million Debt Relief for Disabled Veterans
15
Arizona Attorney General. Attorney General Mayes Announces Nearly $2 Million Settlement to Protect Veterans