38 C.F.R. § 14.804

Factors to consider

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

In deciding whether to authorize the disclosure of VA records or information or the testimony of VA personnel, VA personnel responsible for making the decision should consider the following types of factors:

(a) The need to avoid spending the time and money of the United States for private purposes and to conserve the time of VA personnel for conducting their official duties concerning servicing the Nation's veteran population;

(b) How the testimony or production of records would assist VA in performing its statutory duties;

(c) Whether the disclosure of the records or presentation of testimony is necessary to prevent the perpetration of fraud or other injustice in the matter in question;

(d) Whether the demand or request is unduly burdensome or otherwise inappropriate under the applicable court or administrative rules;

(e) Whether the testimony or production of records, including release in camera, is appropriate or necessary under the rules of procedure governing the case or matter in which the demand or request arose, or under the relevant substantive law concerning privilege;

(f) Whether the testimony or production of records would violate a statute, executive order, regulation or directive. (Where the production of a record or testimony as to the content of a record or about information contained in a record would violate a confidentiality statute's prohibition against disclosure, disclosure will not be made. Examples of such statutes are the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and sections 5701, 5705 and 7332 of title 38, United States Code.);

(g) Whether the testimony or production of records, except when in camera and necessary to assert a claim of privilege, would reveal information properly classified pursuant to applicable statutes or Executive Orders;

(h) Whether the testimony would interfere with ongoing law enforcement proceedings, compromise constitutional rights, compromise national security interests, hamper VA or private health care research activities, reveal sensitive patient or beneficiary information, interfere with patient care, disclose trade secrets or similarly confidential commercial or financial information or otherwise be inappropriate under the circumstances.

(i) Whether such release or testimony reasonably could be expected to result in the appearance of VA or the Federal government favoring one litigant over another;

(j) Whether such release or testimony reasonably could be expected to result in the appearance of VA or the Federal government endorsing or supporting a position advocated by a party to the proceeding;

(k) The need to prevent the public's possible misconstruction of variances between personal opinions of VA personnel and VA or Federal policy.

(l) The need to minimize VA's possible involvement in issues unrelated to its mission;

(m) Whether the demand or request is within the authority of the party making it;

(n) Whether the demand or request is sufficiently specific to be answered;

(o) Other matters or concerns presented for consideration in making the decision.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501 (a) and (b); 5 U.S.C. 301)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: Solomon v. Nassau Cnty., 274 F.R.D. 455 (E.D.N.Y 2011).
Solomon v. Nassau Cnty., 274 F.R.D. 455 (E.D.N.Y 2011). · cites it 5× “, require that the VA determine the nature of the testimony requested, and evaluate certain factors set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 14.804 , relating to how the testimony in the current case, as well as future cases, will impact the ability of the agency or VA personnel to perform…”
Rhoads v. United States Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 242 F. Supp. 3d 985 (E.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 3× “) The letter also specifically cited the following factors as reasons for the denial: 38 C.F.R. § 14.804 (a) (“the need to avoid spending the time and money of the United States for private purposes and to conserve the time of the VA personnel for conducting their official…”
State v. Terry, 2017 Ohio 2686 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶ 22} As stated above, the VA originally sent Terry a letter regarding subpoena requirements on December 31, 2015.”
Schroeder v. United States Dep't of Vets. Affairs, The (D. Kan. 2023). · cites it 13× “As support for its decision to withhold production of the requested information, the VA relied on several factors found in 38 C.F.R. § 14.804 . Specifically, the VA cited the following § 14.”
Murphy v. United States Dep't of Vets. Affairs (D. Colo. 2025). · cites it 3× “Murphy construes as encompassing 38 C.F.R. § 14.804 (d). [Doc. 11 at 13]. He challenges the VA’s reliance on 38 C.”
Staten v. Chubb Grp. Ins. (N.D. Ala. 2021). “38 C.F.R. § 14.804 . “Upon a showing by the requester or court or other appropriate authority that, in light of the factors listed in § 14.”
Johnson v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. (E.D.N.Y 2019). “See 38 C.F.R. § 14.804 . A party seeking the testimony of an agency employee must comply with the agency’s Touhy regulations by making a proper demand, exhausting any administrative remedies, and otherwise following the directives established by the agency.”
S.P. v. G.S., 37 Misc. 3d 594 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 2012). “*597 The attorney for the father stated that the VA’s analysis of whether to permit the psychiatrist to testify was flawed and an abuse of discretion in that only some of the factors under the applicable VA regulation (38 CFR 14.804) were applied. He stated that the father has…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.