SF 1894: Learn How Minnesota Aims To Fight ‘Claim Sharks’

Minnesota Senate Subcommittee Advances SF 1894 to Address “Claim Sharks” Targeting Veterans

Saint Paul, MN – The Minnesota Senate Subcommittee on Veterans held a hearing on March 3, 2025, to review Senate File 1894, legislation designed to protect veterans from predatory claims assistance providers, commonly referred to as “claim sharks.” The bill, introduced by Senator Aric Putnam, seeks to improve accountability in the veteran benefits services industry and establish safeguards against unethical practices.

SF 1894 includes key provisions such as:

• Requiring accreditation by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for individuals providing veteran benefits services in exchange for compensation.
• Mandating written fee agreements to enhance transparency.
• Prohibiting service providers from guaranteeing benefits or specific compensation levels.
• Establishing penalties for violations under consumer protection laws.

The proposed legislation met with sharp opposition after it was swiftly brought to a hearing shortly after the bill’s introduction on February 27, 2025, leaving little time for stakeholders to craft written and verbal testimony.

Efforts to address concerns in the bill’s language, as raised by United Veterans Leadership Council (UVLC), a local Minnesota nonprofit, were reportedly not addressed before its introduction. The hearing was scheduled immediately after the following weekend, on March 3, 2025, with written testimony due on Sunday.

• UVLC Legislative Rewrite Proposal to MDVA, February 21, 2025
• UVLC Resolution to MDVA, February 21, 2025

MDVA failed to notify all known stakeholders and constituency groups, including UVLC, for cause unknown.

After the testimony concluded, MDVA’s Jon Kelly approached Benjamin Krause, chair of UVLC, in a heated exchange, reinforcing concerns that state officials may be resistant to necessary reforms.

RELATED: Understanding Who Can Help Veterans – And Who Can’t

Minnesota SF 1894 Hearing Testimony

Why the SF 1894 Hearing Matters: The Battle Over Veterans’ Right to Legal Representation

The recent hearing on SF 1894 sheds light on a critical issue beyond Minnesota—the growing efforts of taxpayer-funded agencies and organizations to limit veterans’ right to hire legal representation. While the bill claims to address fraudulent claims consultants, it raises deeper concerns about how state agencies like MDVA, along with CVSOs and VSOs, are systematically restricting access to accredited attorneys and claims agents who can provide veterans with high-quality legal support.

This hearing exposed a pattern of protectionism where state agencies and organizations that receive public funding are working to preserve their own influence over veterans’ benefits claims—often at the expense of the very veterans they are meant to serve. By these state governments sidelining VA-accredited attorneys and limiting veterans’ choices, these entities are not only shaping policy without transparency or accountability but also creating significant barriers for veterans seeking fair and just outcomes against the federal government helping fund them.

As this issue unfolds, it’s vital for the public and policymakers to recognize the broader implications of government-backed restrictions on legal access and ensure that veterans retain the right to choose the best representation for their needs.

Background

Senate File 1894 was introduced by Senator Aric Putnam to address growing concerns about predatory claims assistance providers, commonly known as “claim sharks.” The bill builds on previous legislation enacted in 2017, which required written disclosures from paid service providers assisting veterans with benefits claims. The 2017 bill, then HF 1209, was supported by the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs (MDVA), the Minnesota Association of County Veterans Service Officers (MACVSO), and the Commander’s Task Force (CTF). The bill was described as follows:

However, no formal working group, including attorneys from the Minnesota State Bar Association, was established prior to the passage of the bill to ensure that its requirements did not conflict with the U.S. Constitution, the Minnesota Constitution, federal laws such as 38 C.F.R. §§ 14.629-636, or state laws such as Minn. Stat. § 481.02, which governs the Unauthorized Practice of Law.

Minn. Stat. § 197.6091, also known as the “Disclosure Law,” required anyone providing “veterans benefits services” to have veterans sign a disclosure form before obtaining paid assistance. The law also required for-profit companies, including law firms, to include language in advertisements promoting the use of County Veterans Service Officers (CVSOs) for “veterans benefits appeal services.” Violators faced a $1,000 fine per incident, per day.

The law placed significant burdens on for-profit providers without distinguishing between VA-accredited professionals and unaccredited actors. The terms “veterans benefits services” and “veterans benefits appeal services” were not carefully defined, creating legal ambiguities.

For example, licensed attorneys in Minnesota practice law under their law license pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 481. Attorneys are authorized to provide and advertise legal services as regulated by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Any unlicensed person who completes legal documents such as a Formal Appeal document or advertises legal services engages in the Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL), which has been a crime in Minnesota since 1931.

The 2017 statute, however, reclassified professional legal services as “veterans benefits services” and “veterans benefits appeal services,” equating them to the work of CVSOs as regulated by MDVA, an executive branch agency. This reclassification created implementation challenges, as MDVA does not oversee licensed attorneys.

Under the Disclosure Law, attorneys were required to have their clients sign a disclaimer stating:

“You must sign this form if you wish to pay for services that you could receive at no cost from a Veterans Service Organization, the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs or Minnesota County Veterans Service Officer.”

Additionally, attorneys were required to include the following statement in their advertisements:

“that veterans benefits appeal services are also offered at no cost by county veterans service officers under sections 197.603 and 197.604.”

As a result, multiple VA-accredited attorneys in Minnesota ceased providing paid legal representation to veterans, making it difficult for veterans to secure legal help from Minnesota-based attorneys.

Between 2017 and 2025, the claims consulting industry grew significantly, likely due in part to veterans struggling to contact CVSOs and VSOs during pandemic-related lockdowns.

In 2024, MDVA identified regulating claim sharks as a top policy priority, with MACVSO and CTF supporting similar legislative initiatives. These organizations argued that the issue was too urgent to wait for federal regulations addressing unaccredited actors charging veterans excessive fees while providing substandard assistance.

The introduction of SF 1894 in 2025 followed some discussion but did not include a formal working group of attorneys from the Minnesota State Bar Association, similar to the 2017 process.

Testimony Highlights

Support from State Officials and VSOs

During the Minnesota Senate Subcommittee on Veterans hearing, several individuals testified in support of SF 1894, emphasizing the need for increased accountability and protections against predatory actors in the VA claims assistance space. Below are key points and exact quotes from Jon Kelly, Ron Quade, and Kristy Janigo.

Jon Kelly – Director of Government Affairs, Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs (MDVA)

Jon Kelly testified in support of SF 1894, stating that the bill would strengthen existing protections for veterans while ensuring that only accredited representatives provide VA claims services.

• On the purpose of the bill:
  “Senate File 1894 is an important bill and a necessary one… Despite what you may have heard in meetings or in the letters of opposition to this bill, Senate File 1894 does not seek to block veterans from paying for veterans benefit services. It simply seeks to prevent bad actors from doing business here in Minnesota.”
• On misleading claims by for-profit entities:
  “Many of the companies that are widely known as ‘Claim Sharks’ are attempting to draw a legal distinction between providing advice to veterans about the information needed to substantiate their claims and filing the claim under their own name. However, this is a distinction without a difference.”
• On why accreditation is necessary:
  “If passed, veterans here in our state would still be able to utilize for-profit companies and attorneys if they are accredited by the US Department of Veterans Affairs.”

Ron Quade – Director of Veteran Services, Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs (MDVA)

Ron Quade strongly supported SF 1894, arguing that veterans need additional safeguards to prevent exploitation by unaccredited claims agents.

• On the need for stricter regulations:
  “We believe we need stronger guardrails in place to protect Minnesota veterans and their families from claims predators or, as you’ve heard, ‘Claim Sharks’… or, dare I say, there is also the phrase ‘Pension Poacher’ out in our business.”
• On the risks posed by unaccredited representatives:
  “Unaccredited agents and organizations have no view access into the VA ecosystem, effectively making them blind to the claims process and unable to assist veterans with anything during the claims process.”
• On fraudulent claims assistance cases:
  “A veteran in Northern Minnesota came to MDVA for help about two years ago… [An unaccredited organization] told him if he did his claim with them, it would be a ‘slam dunk’ and it would be easy to get granted. They did nothing other than hand him blank claims forms at a coffee shop and made him sign an agreement that would pay thousands of dollars after the claim was approved.”
• On the impact of predatory actors:
  “The veteran eventually paid out of fear that these invoices… would ruin his credit. This is not an isolated incident.”

Kristy Janigo – Legislative Chair, American Legion Department of Minnesota & Assistant County Veteran Service Officer

Dr. Kristy Janigo, legislative chair for the American Legion Department of Minnesota (Legion), Minnesota Association of County Veterans Service Officers (MACVSO), and Commander’s Task Force (CTF), and an Assistant County Veterans Service Officer, underscored the need for action.

Dr. Kristy Janigo testified in strong support of SF 1894, emphasizing that VA accreditation ensures competency in claims representation and that non-accredited actors have misled veterans.

• On the importance of accreditation:
  “We’re asking those who intend to represent veterans on VA benefits matters to earn accreditation through the VA… so that they’re listed publicly as an attorney, a claims agent, or a VSO representative.”
• On her personal experience as a VSO representative:
  “To be good at this job, you have to have a keen interest in people and their stories. Veterans’ stories are sacred to me. I retell them to the federal government in the form of a lot of paperwork in the pursuit of life-changing benefits for veterans who are down on their luck in every way conceivable.”
• On the unethical nature of some private actors:
  “I have worked with homeless veterans who had signed a contract with a private attorney. I ask you, is it ethical for a private attorney or business to profit off a homeless veteran?”
• On misleading advertising by non-accredited representatives:
  “I’ve had to debunk misinformation that claim sharks have perpetuated about the speed of claims, with veterans believing that an attorney or a private business could get them through it faster and to a 100% rating. That is unequivocally false.”
• On why SF 1894 is crucial:
  “From the bottom of my heart, thank you for hearing this bill. It is long overdue.”

Opposition – Unaccredited Consultants

The Minnesota Senate Subcommittee on Veterans heard testimony from various stakeholders regarding SF 1894, a bill intended to regulate entities providing assistance with VA claims. While supporters argued the bill would protect veterans from predatory actors, opponents expressed concerns about unintended consequences limiting veterans’ access to assistance. Below are key points from individuals representing unaccredited consultants.

Note: any unaccredited company working on benefits claims for profit are frequently referenced as “claim sharks” without regard to whether their service helps the veteran.

1. Ray Colas – Veteran Benefits Guide

Ray Colas testified on behalf of Veteran Benefits Guide (VBG), stating that while his organization supports many aspects of SF 1894, the requirement for accreditation would unfairly eliminate reputable for-profit companies from helping veterans.

• On working with lawmakers:
  “We would be more than happy to partner with you and Senator Putnam to, uh, make this, strengthen this bill so that we can focus more so on those predatory practices while, again, leaving an option available for those veterans who choose to use a for-profit entity to secure their benefits.”
• On the bill’s intent vs. impact:
  “Now we heard some of the stories, um, from the testifiers just before us, and yes, they are correct. There are bad actors in this space. But it is our position that we separate the good from the bad as opposed to eliminating the entire industry altogether.”
• On veteran choice:
  “It is just unfortunate to me that we can say to these vets who some of them who are committing suicide because they are not receiving the services that they are currently owed to them because of the current broken system to then say a private industry should not exist because we don’t believe a veteran should have to pay for these services.”

2. Ashleigh Barry – National Association for Veterans Rights

Ashleigh Barry, a former investigative journalist and federal VA executive, testified against the bill, arguing it could make an already difficult system worse for veterans.

• On the VA’s inefficiencies:
  “A decade ago, just a little bit of history, I was reporting for CBS News in Phoenix. I helped uncover the VA wait time scandal that shocked the nation. I reported on veterans who suffered and even died while waiting for benefits and for care, and that crisis was supposed to be a wake-up call.”
• On the potential harm of the bill:
  “I do believe it worsens an already overburdened system, ultimately harming the very individuals this legislation claims to protect.”
• On wait times and access to assistance:
  “Minnesota is home to more than 285,000 veterans, but there are just under 300 VSO officers. That means each VSO is responsible for more than 350 veterans. That’s a completely unsustainable workload.”
• On private-sector efficiency:
  “Meanwhile, VA’s average wait time to process a claim in Minnesota is 152 days. In contrast, private sector professionals, like those that are members of NAVAIR, in many cases, help veterans receive decisions in just 85 days in some cases, and that’s nearly two months faster.”

Opposition – Accredited Attorneys

These attorneys testified in opposition to the bill due to the overall impact of the statute the bill sought to amend without correcting the unconstitutional impact of the statue.

1. VA-Accredited Attorney Brian Lewis

Attorney Brian Lewis strongly opposed the bill, arguing that it would make it even harder for attorneys to represent veterans in Minnesota.

• On the bill’s preemption and legal issues:
  “If this Minnesota state legislature keeps going with these bills, there’s a good chance that the district of Minnesota may actually go ahead and say, ‘This is field preempted.’”
• On why he does not take Minnesota cases:
  “Since the passage of the Minnesota statute 197.6091 in 2017, I have not taken a single case from the state of Minnesota. I also don’t know any other attorneys who will take a case in the state of Minnesota for one reason. We cannot ethically say to potential clients in that disclosure statement that unlicensed and untrained laypersons… are the legal equivalent of a licensed and VA accredited attorney.”
• On misleading claims about fee limits:
  “The regulation that they quoted, 38 CFR 14.636(f), specifically states: ‘Fees which do not exceed 20% of any past due benefits awarded… shall be presumed to be reasonable… Fees which exceed 33 1/3% shall be presumed to be unreasonable.’”
• On potential legal consequences for attorneys under the bill:
  “So if I do an initial review of a case, and I say, ‘Okay, this veteran is at 30% and looks like they should be at 70%,’ did I just implicitly violate this section as written? That’s a problem.”

2. VA-Accredited Attorney Benjamin Krause

Benjamin Krause, a disabled veteran, investigative journalist, and VA-accredited attorney, opposed SF 1894, emphasizing that the bill could limit veterans’ access to legal representation and create constitutional issues.

• On potential unintended consequences for veterans:
  “We need to be mindful that we’re chilling veterans’ access to lawful attorneys in the state of Minnesota that no longer represent veterans or refuse to.”
• On his concerns about Minnesota’s laws:
  “We stopped taking paid clients, similar to Mr. Lewis and his law firm, many years ago because of the current state of the law in Minnesota where we feel it is so vague that it’s dangerous.”
• On problems with accreditation mandates:
  “The overall law requires that if I represent a Minnesota veteran for pay, I have to force my client, who is a non-attorney, to sign a disclaimer form under penalty of a $1,000-a-day fine… saying that the work I do as a licensed attorney is akin to what a CVSO does, which is patently false.”
• On existing legal remedies for fraudulent claims assistance:
  “This is already illegal. It’s already illegal. It’s a misdemeanor in the state of Minnesota. It’s been that way since 1931. So we’re kind of retreading turf that’s already been addressed.”
• On the lack of consultation with attorneys before drafting the bill:
  “The Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs did not consult with VA-accredited attorneys before this current draft came out, as well as the underlying statute… The Minnesota Bar Association wasn’t consulted.”

MN Senators Respond To Testimony

The discussion among Minnesota senators regarding SF 1894 was marked by a mix of concern, skepticism, and urgency.

While some senators, like Sen. Aric Putnam and Sen. Bonnie Gustafson, strongly advocated for the bill as a necessary measure to protect veterans from predatory claims practices, others, including Sen. Eric Duckworth, Sen. Bruce Anderson, and Sen. Nathan Wesenberg, expressed reservations about its potential unintended consequences and the lack of evidence supporting provided to the Senate from MDVA.

Several senators called for a more measured approach, questioning whether the bill had been properly vetted and whether it might inadvertently limit veterans’ access to legitimate legal representation.

Overall, the hearing revealed deep divisions on how best to regulate claims services while preserving veterans’ rights, with some senators pushing to pass the bill quickly and others urging a pause for further revisions.

Those Who Voted Yes

Here are some key highlights from Minnesota lawmakers who asked detailed questions in favor of the bill.

Senator Aric Putnam: Defending SF 1894 as a Necessary Safeguard

Senator Aric Putnam, chief author of SF 1894, defended the bill as a necessary measure to protect veterans from “claims sharks”—for-profit companies that allegedly exploit veterans seeking benefits.

“We have folks out there in Minnesota right now who who are taking advantage of our veterans, using them for profit when we should instead be revering them.”

Putnam dismissed concerns that the bill would restrict veterans’ ability to choose representation, insisting that the legislation simply adds accountability measures for those offering claims services.

“Clearly, uh, some claim sharks do help veterans, and that’s really important. And that’s why we’re trying not to do anything that causes them, uh, any sort of inconvenience or difficulty. Uh, we are just putting in some responsible accountability measures.”

Putnam’s argument boiled down to protecting veterans from fraudulent actors, even as critics warned the bill would unintentionally block access to legitimate legal help.

Senator Bonnie Gustafson: Strong Support for SF 1894 to Protect Veterans

Senator Bonnie Gustafson was a strong advocate for SF 1894, arguing that the bill was necessary to protect veterans from fraudulent claims practices. She dismissed concerns that the legislation was being rushed, pointing out that it was backed by veteran service organizations (VSOs) and the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs (MDVA).

“I don’t want it to seem like this is rushed. I mean, if the bill didn’t come in in time, that that’s could be for many reasons, but it isn’t because people haven’t been working on this. We care just as much about what happens to the veterans, their funding, making sure that they’re getting the assistance and the resources they need. But this is coming from people who are also in that shared experience and they do this for years and years. These things don’t pop pop up because of a whim. It’s because of work that’s been going on is ongoing where veterans are being taken advantage of.”

Gustafson urged lawmakers to listen to the veteran service organizations who supported the bill, arguing they had firsthand experience with fraudulent claims services. She also defended MDVA and VSOs, pushing back against testimony that questioned the training and effectiveness of county veteran service officers (CVSOs).

Gustafson dismissed concerns from attorneys, emphasizing that the goal was to regulate bad actors, not eliminate options for veterans.

“It is not in any sense our intention to completely remove for profit people doing this work. We just want accountability. That’s it. That’s the goal, and that’s what we’re working for. We’re not trying to put anybody out of business.”

Her statements aligned closely with those of Senator Aric Putnam and MDVA officials, reinforcing SF 1894 as a necessary step to safeguard veterans from financial exploitation.

Those Who Voted No

Here are some key highlights from Minnesota lawmakers who asked detailed questions about the language of the bill concluding in a “No” vote.

Senator Zach Duckworth: Warning Against Rushing SF 1894 Without Fixing Key Issues

Senator Zach Duckworth expressed serious concerns about SF 1894, cautioning against rushing the bill through committee without addressing unintended consequences that could limit veterans’ choices and force them into a broken system.

“I don’t subscribe to the philosophy of we’re gonna hear the bill and just pass it on to the next committee and keep working on it anymore, because I’ve seen that lead to really crappy legislation that actually becomes law.”

Duckworth argued that instead of blocking private sector help, lawmakers should ask why veterans feel the need to turn to outside organizations in the first place.

“And I think one of the most interesting questions, probably the most pertinent question we should be asking ourselves is, why do these veterans even feel the need to be pursuing these organizations to help them in the first place? It’s because things are taking too long. It’s because they’re not finding resolution.”

He pushed back on prior failures of the administration to include attorney stakeholders that resulted in chilling veterans’ access to licensed attorneys for benefits appeals in Minnesota.

“And I got even more fired up as I sat here and listened to attorneys say we’ve actually actively stopped helping veterans because of past legislation that’s been enacted despite feedback.”

Duckworth called for pausing the bill to get it right, ensuring it doesn’t unintentionally harm veterans by reducing access to assistance.

“I think there’s more work that needs to be done with all the stakeholders involved to ensure that the bill that does pass or legislation that does become law is the best it can be, has a chance to get feedback and tweaks from all stakeholders to ensure that at the end of the day, the veterans are being taken care of.”

His position echoed broader concerns that SF 1894 could ultimately hurt veterans by reducing their options and failing to address the real issue—delays and errors within the VA system itself.

Senator Bruce Anderson: Questioning the Need for SF 1894 and Its Lack of Evidence

Senator Bruce Anderson expressed concern about SF 1894, questioning whether there was sufficient evidence to justify expanding regulations on veterans’ claims services. He challenged MDVA’s assertions that predatory claims practices were widespread due to the agency’s failure to produce objective evidence beyond anecdote.

Anderson pushed MDVA’s Ron Quade for hard data, highlighting that lawmakers were being asked to support a bill without clear statistics on the problem it aimed to solve.

“You don’t have the statistics right now, but yet we’re bringing this bill forward to say there’s lots of things that are happening in Minnesota, and we’re going to Washington DC, but you don’t know how many we’re going to Washington DC with. And we’re bringing forward to to supposedly tighten the law.”

He further pointed out that Minnesota already has laws against fraudulent claims services and suggested the state should focus on enforcement rather than introducing new, potentially restrictive regulations.

“And as already mentioned, why not get involved with the attorney general here in the state of Minnesota?“

Anderson’s comments echoed concerns from attorneys and veteran advocates who fear SF 1894 will do more harm than good by limiting veterans’ options while failing to effectively target fraud.

Senator Nathan Wesenberg: Strong Opposition to SF 1894 and Government Overreach

Senator Nathan Wesenberg was critical of SF 1894, expressing concern to what he saw as government misconstruing the argument opposing the present language of the bill.

“[T]hey want to help veterans do what’ s best for veterans but a lot of these are people who are veterans and designed this because they’ re not being helped properly or in an efficient manner or fast enough right?”

Wesenberg reiterated that opposition to was mainly focused language in the bill having unintended consequences that impeed on veterans’ choice of help.

“Somehow we need to come together on both sides and I would agree with Senator Duckworth maybe not move this forward yet and let’ s tighten this up and let’s get this to where it needs to be before we move forward. I know you agree that, uh, I can’t talk, Senator Putnam, that we want to do what’s best for veterans.”

His opposition to the present language of the bill placed him on the side of those advocating for veterans’ choice and free-market competition.

Final Vote And Next Steps

After extensive discussion, the subcommittee voted 5-4 in favor of advancing SF 1894 to the full Senate Agriculture, Veterans, Broadband, and Rural Development Committee.

Voted Aye (Yes):

• Senator Aric Putnam
• Senator Mary Kunesh
• Senator Rob Kupec
• Senator Judy Seeberger
• Senator Bonnie Gustafson​

Voted Nay (No):

• Senator Bruce Anderson​
• Senator Gene Dornink
• Senator Zach Duckworth
• Senator Nathan Wesenberg

Senator Putnam acknowledged concerns raised by stakeholders and committed to refining the bill before its next hearing.

“Our goal is not to eliminate choices for veterans but to ensure those choices are ethical and accountable,” Putnam stated. “We will continue working with all parties to get this right.”

A follow-up meeting with all stakeholders was promised to address further the legislative concerns raised during the testimony. Ensuring that this meeting takes place will be a key next step.

The bill will now proceed to the full committee before heading to the Senate Judiciary Committee for further review.

About Those Who Testified

Jon Kelly – MDVA

Jon Kelly serves as the Director of Government Affairs at the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs (MDVA). He joined MDVA in late 2024, bringing over eight years of experience working with the Minnesota Capitol. He previously served as the Director of Government Affairs for the Minnesota Department of Commerce and Senior Policy Advisor to Governor Walz and Lt. Governor Flanagan covering a number of policy areas including Veterans Affairs, Economic Development and Bonding. Prior to moving to Minnesota, Jon worked in the New York State Assembly and in the financial services industry. Jon holds a Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree from the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.

Ron Quade – MDVA

Ron Quade serves as the Director of Veterans Services at the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs (MDVA). In this role, he oversees the Claims and Outreach Division, advocating for veterans and their dependents seeking benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Quade has been instrumental in streamlining processes to enhance service delivery, leading to multiple awards and recognitions for the department. He is also a member of American Legion Post 45 in New Prague, Minnesota.

Dr. Kristy Janigo – CVSO, MACVSO, Legion, CTF

Dr. Kristy Janigo is a third-generation Army veteran who served in the North Dakota Army National Guard from 2000 to 2006 as a 92W (water treatment specialist) sergeant and squad leader. She currently holds multiple leadership positions, including Legislative Chair for both the American Legion Department of Minnesota and the Minnesota Association of County Veteran Service Officers (MACVSO). Additionally, she serves as an assistant County Veterans Service Officer, assisting veterans with housing, legal matters, and accessing VA benefits. Beyond her professional roles, Dr. Janigo is actively involved in her community, having run for Maple Grove City Council and participating in various local organizations. Dr. Janigo holds a PhD in Design from the University of Minnesota.

Ray Colas – Veterans Benefits Guide

Ray Colas is the Policy Director at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, where he assists corporations in navigating state laws and regulations. He has a long history representing the automotive sector and has also been involved with Veterans Benefits Guide (VBG), advocating for veterans’ access to benefits. In this capacity, Colas has testified before legislative bodies to express concerns about bills affecting veterans’ services, emphasizing the importance of providing veterans with private, legal, and federally compliant options to ensure they receive the benefits they’ve earned.

Ashleigh Berry – National Association for Veterans Rights

Ashleigh Barry is the Senior Vice President of Communications for the National Association for Veterans Rights (NAVR). An Emmy Award-winning journalist, she has over 20 years of experience with major networks, including ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News. She previously served as Senior VP of Corporate Communications at Western Magnesium Corporation and spent nearly four years at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, advising four VA Cabinet secretaries. Barry is also the CEO of Barry Media & Communications Consulting and a media host for Global One Media. Her investigative work on the Phoenix VA scandal deepened her commitment to veterans’ issues.

Brian Lewis – Francis White Law, PLLC

Brian Lewis is an attorney at Francis White Law, PLLC, based in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. His practice areas include military law, social security and disability, and family law. Lewis has been licensed to practice law in Minnesota since 2017 and has previously served as a law clerk at Francis White Law before becoming an attorney. He is also the Director of Litigation at Military-Veterans Advocacy, Inc., reflecting his commitment to advocating for service members and veterans. Lewis holds a Juris Doctor from Mitchell Hamlin School of Law after his honorable discharge from the US Navy. He is a disabled veteran.

Benjamin Krause – Krause Law, PLLC

Benjamin Krause is an award-winning advocate, veteran rights attorney, and investigative journalist, founder of Krause Law, PLLC, and chief editor of DisabledVeterans.org. A disabled U.S. Air Force veteran, he served in Special Operations and Air Mobility Command before earning degrees from Northwestern University (BA, Economics) and the University of Minnesota Law School (JD, magna cum laude). Krause has exposed major VA scandals, including improper TBI exams, leading to policy reforms. He has extensive experience as a member of news media. He chairs the United Veterans Leadership Council, is a life member of Disabled American Veterans, and belongs to American Legion Post 225 of Forest Lake, MN.