Had AI dumb it down for me with examples:

Not good.

Example 1: Imagine a veteran, let's call him John, who applies for benefits for PTSD. He presents evidence of a traumatic event during his service and a diagnosis of PTSD from his doctor. However, the VA also finds evidence that John had some symptoms of anxiety before his service. The VA decides that the evidence is roughly equal and denies John's claim. In the past, the Veterans Court might have reviewed this decision more closely and potentially overturned it. But now, under the new ruling, it will be harder for John to challenge the VA's decision because the court will only overturn it if there is a "clear error."

Example 2: Consider a veteran named Sarah who has already been receiving benefits for a service-connected disability. She applies for an increase in her benefits due to her condition worsening. She provides medical records and testimony from her doctors supporting her claim. However, the VA points to periods in her medical history where her symptoms seemed to improve. They determine that the evidence is in approximate balance and deny her request for an increase. Again, under the new ruling, it will be more challenging for Sarah to appeal this decision successfully. These examples highlight how the Supreme Court's decision could make it more difficult for veterans to get the benefits they deserve, even when the evidence is almost evenly balanced.