How plans to revive the veteran ‘claim sharks’ bill fell apart as Kansas legislative session ended

Veterans of Foreign Wars lobbyist Jim Karleskint was beaming at the end of the legislative session when a plan to revive a "claim sharks" bill fell apart. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

TOPEKA — After lawmakers on April 9 sustained Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto on the bill that would have allowed legally questioned for-profit consultants to charge veterans for help filing their disability claims, Veterans of Foreign Wars lobbyist Jim Karleskint was beaming.

A few hours later, so was La Cygne Republican Rep. Rick James. For a different reason.

The two veterans have been focused on the bill for the entire Statehouse session — Karleskint against it, and James for it. After the governor’s veto, James tried to change the language of the bill — which he thought would work, until he discovered one representative did not sign off. After a bit of political drama, the veto was sustained.

The for-profit consultants charge veterans for help filing their disability claims with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Federal law says only accredited services — like the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign wars, which are always free — can help a veteran file an initial claim, but there are no criminal penalties for violating the law. Many states have banned the for-profit consultants, known derisively as “claim sharks.”

Some of the for-profit consultants have charged veterans tens of thousands of dollars for the service opponents argue should be free. The bill that passed the House and Senate would have green lit them to continue operating in Kansas, by placing restrictions on how much they can charge and how they can operate rather than banning them.

James, and other proponents of the bill, say the paid services are faster and that veterans should have the choice between using a free or paid service. Opponents say the for-profit services should be banned because of federal law, and that they take advantage of veterans by charging them exorbitant fees.

In a Friday morning conference committee, James — the most vocal proponent of the bill — replaced the regulations of contested House Bill 2214 with language that would create a website to display all of the certified for-profit companies.

So, instead of regulating the companies like the original bill had, the Kansas Office of Veterans Services would be required to display the for-profit services.

No regulations, no ban. Not what proponents or opponents wanted.

Junction City Republican Rep. Shawn Chauncey, a veteran, was on the conference committee. Chauncey supported the change, and said proponents’ main goal was to eliminate bad actors. Proponents say only a select few of the for-profit consultants charge veterans the exorbitant fees opponents point to.

“Basically all we did was eliminate any protections that we have for our veterans,” Chauncey told Kansas Reflector. “All we were advocating for was that the people that protect our country should have a choice on how they spend their money.”

Karleskint, a strong opponent of the change, said this version was worse than the original bill. He said this version essentially endorsed the for-profit claims consultants.

But, proponents of the change said because the website would display if the for-profit consultant was certified or not, it was a step in the right direction. Chauncey said it would help a veteran weed out the bad actors if they chose to use a paid service.

Plus, the new version was still bundled with several popular bills. Those would expand veterans’ preference in employment and put a memorial kiosk in the Statehouse.

But one representative from the committee wouldn’t sign off on the changes. Chauncey and Karleskint said it was Rep. Virgil Weigel, a Democrat from Topeka. Chauncey said this was hours after the meeting Friday morning, when the House was in its final moments of the session.

Weigel didn’t respond to Kansas Reflector’s requests for comment.

That meant the House would have to take a procedural vote to send the bill back to conference committee without the support of the rogue negotiator. A lot of legislative process needed to happen in a short amount of time.

“We went down there and talked to him, and he decided that he couldn’t sign,” Chauncey said. “So we didn’t go back to committee to do it. We just let the bill go, and decided if we had an opportunity we could bring it back up next session.”

The Legislature’s opinion on these for-profit claims consultants has evolved. In 2024, a bill Karleskint proposed that would have banned the companies cleared a committee but was killed before it reached the floor.

That’s a far cry from the bill that nearly passed this session, which would have given the companies the green light to continue operation.

A bone of contention opponents have with the for-profit companies is that they operate on a legal technicality. Federal law says “no individual may act as an agent or attorney in the preparation, presentation, or prosecution of any claim,” unless they’re accredited, like the free nonprofits that offer the service. But there is no enforced criminal penalty.

Plus, opponents say, it is unethical to charge veterans for a service that should, in their opinions, be free.

For-profit claims consultants maintain that their work is legal, despite multiple warning letters from the V.A. that their work may be illegal.

In Karleskint’s perfect world, the Legislature would return to his 2024 bill that bans the for-profit claims consultants.

After HB 2214 failed to pass the House with a veto-proof majority, it was bundled with popular bills into House Bill 2626. HB 2626 passed the House with the veto-proof majority proponents were seeking. So why was the veto sustained?

In Karleskint’s opinion, because of money. After the governor vetoed the bill, Karleskint tried to get legislators on his side — and told them about the $2,000 that for-profit claims consultants donated to House Speaker Dan Hawkins and the $750 to James.

Rep. Rick Wilborn, a Republican from McPherson, is one of four representatives who switched their vote to sustain the veto. Wilborn said the reasoning behind his switch is because the Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion from his district — who provide the service for free — were against the bill.