Higher-Level Review Informal Conference: What Attorneys Can Argue, What Is Closed, and How to Prepare

The HLR informal conference is a telephonic call between a representative and the higher-level adjudicator assigned to the case. Its sole purpose is identifying errors of law or fact in the prior decision based on the record that existed when that decision was issued. No new evidence enters. No new facts are introduced. The call does not function as a hearing, a negotiation, or a second bite at submitting medical opinions.

38 CFR § 3.2601^[1]

Firms that treat the informal conference as a document submission opportunity or an occasion to develop the record are misusing it. Preparation means something specific here: knowing the closed record cold, mapping that record against the rating criteria, and identifying where the prior adjudicator got the law or facts wrong.

What the Informal Conference Is and What It Is Not

The informal conference is a one-time telephonic call with the specific higher-level adjudicator reviewing the case. The representative identifies errors. The reviewer conducts a de novo review giving no deference to the prior decision.

38 CFR § 3.2601^[1]

That de novo standard matters. The higher-level reviewer is not deferring to what the original rater concluded. The reviewer looks at the same closed record and decides fresh. The conference is the firm's opportunity to direct that fresh look toward the specific places in the record where the prior decision went wrong.

The conference is not a hearing. There is no transcript, no cross-examination, no formal submission of argument. It is not an evidence development call. VA will not receive new evidence and will not consider facts outside the file at the time of the prior decision.

VA.gov – Higher-Level Reviews^[2]

Firms can get one informal conference per HLR. There is no second call if the first one covers new ground or goes badly.

The Closed-Record Constraint: What Evidence Governs the Call

The record is fixed at the moment the prior decision was issued. Every argument made during the conference must trace back to something inside that fixed record. Evidence submitted after the decision date, medical opinions developed after the decision, and facts first raised after the decision are all outside the conference's scope.

38 CFR § 3.2601^[1]

This has a direct case-file implication. Before the call, staff need to reconstruct the evidence of record as it existed on the decision date. That means pulling the C-file, the rating decision, and every document that was in the file at time of decision. Records added after the decision date belong in a Supplemental Claim analysis, not the HLR conference prep.

If the firm cannot identify what was in the record at decision, the conference preparation is compromised. Staff can clear that blockerby indexing the C-file against the decision date and flagging any documents whose receipt date post-dates the decision. Attorney review can then focus on whether the closed record actually supports the arguable errors the firm intends to raise.

What Counts as an Arguable Error of Law or Fact

An error of fact means the adjudicator got the facts wrong based on what was actually in the record. Examples include misreading a nexus opinion, ignoring a buddy statement that was in the file, or assigning a rating percentage that does not match the symptom findings documented in a C&P exam already in the record.

An error of law means the adjudicator applied the wrong legal standard, misread a rating criterion, failed to apply a presumption that applied, or did not follow required procedure. Examples include failing to apply the benefit of the doubt standard where the evidence was in approximate balance, applying the wrong diagnostic code, or failing to consider all periods of service when service connection was at issue.

The higher-level adjudicator reviews de novo under 38 CFR § 3.2601, which means the firm does not need to show that the prior adjudicator's error was unreasonable. The reviewer looks fresh at the record and the criteria.

38 CFR § 3.2601^[1]

The case-work task before the call is to map each arguable error to the specific page and document in the closed record that proves it. Vague arguments about the prior decision being wrong do not help the reviewer. Precise citations to the record do.

How to Request the Conference and When the Deadline Closes

The request must be marked on VA Form 20-0996, Item 16A, at the time the HLR is filed. VA will not accept an informal conference request submitted after the HLR application is received.

VA Form 20-0996^[3]

The filing deadline for the HLR itself is one year from the date on the prior decision letter.

VA.gov – Choosing a Decision Review Option^[4]

Missing the checkbox means no conference. The firm cannot call VA after filing and add the request. The only path to an informal conference on that decision is to have checked the box before submitting Form 20-0996.

This creates a threshold judgment call before filing. The attorney needs to decide at intake, before submitting the HLR, whether the case has arguable errors in the closed record that the conference would help surface. If the decision to request the conference comes after the HLR is already filed, the opportunity is gone.

VA's Two-Attempt Contact Rule and What Firms Must Do Before the Call

VA makes exactly two attempts to reach the representative to schedule the informal conference. If neither attempt succeeds, the higher-level adjudicator reviews the case and issues a decision without the conference.

VA.gov – Higher-Level Reviews^[2]

There is no third attempt. There is no rescheduling. A missed call is a lost conference.

The practical implication is that the right person must be reachable at the contact information on file from the moment the HLR is submitted until the conference is scheduled. If the attorney who will conduct the conference is different from the staff person who handles scheduling calls, the firm needs to decide in advance who answers VA's call and what number is on file.

Firms should also confirm that the contact information on Form 20-0996 reaches the right person and is current. A disconnected number, a changed phone system, or a staff transition after filing can eliminate the conference opportunity without any further warning.

When VA does reach the representative, the call is live. The reviewer is on the line. Preparation cannot happen during the call. The argument needs to be built before the phone rings.

Binding Favorable Findings and the Risk Calculus for Requesting the Conference

Any finding favorable to the claimant made during a higher-level review is binding on all subsequent VA adjudicators, with limited exceptions.

38 CFR § 3.104(c)^[5]

This cuts both ways when evaluating whether to request the conference and what to argue during it.

On the upside, a favorable finding at the HLR level locks in a fact that subsequent adjudicators cannot simply disagree with. If the higher-level reviewer makes a favorable nexus finding or a favorable in-service event finding, that finding follows the case. That protection can be strategically significant, particularly in cases that may go to the Board or face future supplemental claim cycles.

On the risk side, the conference focuses the reviewer's attention on the specific errors the firm raises. If the argument identifies an error in one part of the decision, the reviewer may look more carefully at adjacent issues than a standard paper review would prompt. An attorney should assess whether the arguable errors in the closed record are strong enough to justify directing the reviewer's attention to them.

The decision to request the conference and what to argue during it is a judgment call for the accredited attorney. The case file gives the inputs: the closed record, the prior decision, the applicable diagnostic codes and criteria, and the potential favorable findings. The attorney decides the strategy.

Case-File Preparation: Extracting the Closed Record and Surfacing Arguable Errors

Effective preparation starts with the C-file indexed against the decision date. Staff can build that index and flag every document in the file that was present at the time of the prior decision. That index becomes the working boundary for the conference argument.

The attorney review package should map the closed record against the rating decision and the applicable rating criteria. The structure for that package is practical:

Prior decision element	Closed record document	Arguable error	Type (law / fact)
Service connection denied	Nexus opinion in file, page X	Adjudicator read the opinion as negative; it was equivocal	Fact
Rating percentage assigned	C&P exam findings, page Y	Assigned 10%; criteria for 30% met by documented findings	Law / fact
Effective date established	Claim date in file	Earlier informal claim present in record was not addressed	Law

The table is a tool for the attorney, not a submission. It gives the attorney the argument structure before the call and gives staff a clear scope for the records review task.

After the attorney reviews and confirms the errors to raise, the firm's conference preparation is done. The argument is built from the closed record. Nothing outside that record belongs in the call.

Firms that request the conference without doing this preparation are taking on scheduling delay, the two-attempt risk, and the reviewer attention risk with no corresponding upside. The conference is useful when the closed record supports a specific, articulable error. When it does not, a clean paper review may serve the case better.

VA's stated goal for HLR completion is an average of 125 days. Requesting an informal conference extends that timeline.

VA.gov – Higher-Level Reviews^[2]

VA does not publish a fixed additional delay for conference cases. Firms should factor scheduling variability into any timing advice given to clients, particularly when the case involves a time-sensitive effective date or a pending Supplemental Claim cycle.