Why the VA’s Disability System Is Really Worker’s Compensation

Every servicemember enters and leaves the armed forces with a medical examination. That procedural fact reflects the original logic behind what the Department of Veterans Affairs calls “disability compensation.” These payments were not designed as a safety net for those unable to function in civilian life. They were designed as a liability mechanism. 

If military service caused lasting medical harm, the federal government would compensate for that harm as an employer would compensate an injured worker.

That framing has been lost in modern discourse. Recent media coverage and political rhetoric have increasingly treated VA disability as a cultural or moral issue rather than a legal and institutional one, distorting public understanding of what the program is and why it exists.

The Problem With the Word “Disability”

The term “disability” has taken on social meaning far beyond its statutory definition. In public discourse, it often implies incapacity, dependence, and is associated with abuse of public resources. When veterans file claims for post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, degenerative joint disease, hearing loss, or military sexual trauma, the label itself invites suspicion rather than recognition of occupational harm.

This framing shapes who the public perceives as “deserving.” A visibly wounded combat veteran fits the cultural archetype. Veterans with chronic pain, neurological injuries, psychological trauma, or exposure-related illnesses often do not. VA eligibility turns on medical evidence and service connection, not visibility. The gap between appearance and entitlement produces stigma the statute never intended.

Recent commentary has amplified this effect. Financial influencers and political commentators have increasingly treated “VA disability” as shorthand for irresponsibility or fraud, often conflating compensation with income replacement or welfare. 

These claims ignore the basic structure of the program, which does not require unemployment, financial need, or inability to work. VA compensation is paid even when a veteran is fully employed because the harm compensated is medical, not economic.

How Recent Media Coverage Warped the Narrative

In 2024 and 2025, several high-profile news stories focused on alleged abuse of veterans’ benefits and rising disability rolls. These stories triggered backlash from veterans’ organizations and legal scholars who argued the coverage omitted crucial context, including changes in eligibility law and expanded recognition of previously ignored conditions such as burn pit exposure under the PACT.

VA data shows a majority of recent claims involve so-called “invisible injuries,” particularly PTSD and TBI, conditions that were historically underdiagnosed and undertreated. Many of these conditions manifest years after service, especially among post-9/11 veterans. Rising claim numbers reflect expanded recognition and delayed diagnosis, not sudden mass malingering.

When coverage frames this trend as a fiscal or cultural problem rather than a medical one, it reinforces the false idea that compensation is discretionary charity instead of fulfillment of a legal obligation.

A System Built Like Worker’s Compensation, Not Welfare

As a matter of law, VA disability compensation already functions much like worker’s compensation. Title 38 of the U.S. Code requires a condition be “service connected,” meaning incurred or aggravated during military service. It does not ask whether the veteran can work, whether the injury occurred in combat, whether the veteran contributed to the injury through negligence, or the income of the veteran.

This mirrors state worker’s compensation systems, which replaced tort litigation with administrative compensation in exchange for predictability and limited employer liability. The federal government adopted the same approach for military service. The difference is that servicemembers are barred from suing their employer at all.

Historically, Congress understood military service as federal employment. Programs like the World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 and the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 rested on the premise that the government owed compensation for the burdens and harms of service. Over time, however, the language of “disability” reframed that obligation as benevolence rather than accountability.

The Connection to the Feres Doctrine

This linguistic shift matters because VA compensation is inseparable from the Feres Doctrine. In Feres v. United States, the Supreme Court held servicemembers cannot sue the federal government for injuries incident to service. One of the Court’s justifications was that Congress had already created a comprehensive compensation system.

That reasoning persists. In United States v. Johnson, the Court reaffirmed Feres, with Justice Scalia noting in dissent that VA benefits had effectively replaced tort remedies for servicemembers harmed by government negligence.

Today, when military medical malpractice or training negligence occurs, families are told they cannot sue. They are directed instead to VA benefits. Describing those benefits as “disability” obscures the reality that they function as a substitute for rights civilians retain in court.

The Attitudes the Word Creates

Calling this system “disability” encourages civilians and veterans alike to rank injuries and question legitimacy. Veterans with PTSD, TBI, burn pit illnesses, or sexual trauma face skepticism precisely because their injuries do not align with stereotypes of disability.

The stigma has real consequences. VA and academic research show that many veterans delay filing claims for years because they fear being labeled, disbelieved, or judged. Language that implies incapacity or fraud discourages participation in a system designed to compensate harm.

A Better Name and a Clearer Frame

Renaming VA disability compensation to something like Service-Connected Compensation or Military Occupational Injury Benefits would better reflect the program’s legal function. It would also align the language with how Americans already understand workplace injury systems.

Every state operates a worker’s compensation regime based on the same principle: if the job causes harm, the employer pays. Military service is uniquely hazardous work performed on behalf of the state. Because servicemembers cannot sue their employer, compensation is not supplemental. It is the only remedy.

Recognizing VA compensation as service compensation would also force greater honesty in debates about military accountability. If benefits are acknowledged as a substitute for tort liability, policymakers can no longer pretend that Feres leaves servicemembers whole.

Reframing Respect

Changing the name will not fix every structural problem in the VA system. It will not resolve claim backlogs, rating disputes, or gaps in care. But language shapes expectations. Moving from pity to parity would signal that veterans are not asking for charity. They are asserting contractual rights earned through service.

Military service damages bodies and minds. The government already compensates for that damage. Calling it what it is would remind the public that these payments are not generosity. They are debt.