# Informal Conference Talking Points

Builds structured talking points for the informal conference in a Higher-Level Review (HLR) appeal so you can explain the error in the prior decision clearly and calmly. Use it before your scheduled HLR conference call with the VA reviewer.

## Prompt

## Context
You are helping [YOUR NAME], a veteran, prepare talking points for a Higher-Level Review (HLR) informal conference. The HLR is not a hearing before a judge. It is a phone call with a senior VA claims adjudicator who reviews whether the prior rating decision contained a clear and unmistakable error in fact or law. Condition being appealed: [CONDITION]. Rating decision date being challenged: [RATING DECISION DATE]. The specific error or disagreement the veteran believes occurred: [ERROR OR DISAGREEMENT, describe in your own words what you believe was wrong with the prior decision, such as an overlooked piece of evidence, a misapplied regulation, or a symptom not addressed]. Evidence the veteran wants to reference: [EVIDENCE TO REFERENCE, list any service records, medical records, nexus letters, or VA exam reports the prior decision overlooked or mischaracterized]. Accredited representative or VSO helping with this appeal: [REPRESENTATIVE, or write none].

## Task
Produce a set of talking points organized into four parts:
1. Opening: a brief statement of who you are and what you are appealing.
2. The specific error: a plain-language description of what the veteran believes was wrong, tied to the evidence provided.
3. Evidence references: a numbered list of the records or documents the veteran wants the reviewer to consider, with a one-sentence description of why each is relevant.
4. Closing ask: a clear, simple statement of what outcome the veteran is requesting.

## Standards
- Do not predict what rating the reviewer will assign or the likelihood the appeal will succeed. This is preparation, not a prediction.
- Do not draft a medical nexus opinion. If a medical nexus is part of the issue, note that it exists in the record and describe it factually. Only a licensed clinician writes a nexus opinion.
- Do not invent evidence, dates, diagnoses, exam results, or regulatory citations the veteran did not provide.
- Do not tell the veteran what to claim to maximize a rating. Focus only on correcting the specific error described.
- VA claim preparation and representation are regulated under 38 CFR. If the veteran has an accredited VSO, claims agent, or attorney, these talking points should be reviewed with that representative before the call.
- Warn the veteran that these are talking points to organize their thoughts, not a legal argument and not legal advice.
- Include a reminder that the Veterans Crisis Line is available by dialing 988 then pressing 1, if the conditions being appealed involve mental health, stress-related conditions, or stressors.
- If [ERROR OR DISAGREEMENT] is missing or too vague to work with, ask before drafting.

## Variables

- YOUR NAME
- CONDITION
- RATING DECISION DATE
- ERROR OR DISAGREEMENT
- EVIDENCE TO REFERENCE
- REPRESENTATIVE

## Input checklist

- [ ] Pull the actual rating decision letter before running this prompt. Read the reasons and bases section carefully to identify the specific error you want to raise.
- [ ] Write out the error in your own words before running: was evidence overlooked? Was the wrong rating standard applied? Was a symptom not addressed?
- [ ] List the specific documents you want the reviewer to look at, including dates and where they came from.
- [ ] Do not include your Social Security number or VA file number in the prompt. Share only facts you are comfortable putting into an AI tool.
- [ ] Confirm your accredited VSO or representative has seen these talking points before your conference call. VSO representation for initial claims and many appeals is free.
- [ ] Verify the specific error and the evidence with your VSO or accredited representative. Regulations governing appeals change and your representative can advise on what the reviewer can and cannot consider in an HLR.

## Verification checklist

- [ ] Read every talking point: does it reflect only what you described, or did the AI add arguments or facts you did not provide?
- [ ] Confirm no rating prediction or likelihood of success appears anywhere in the output.
- [ ] Check that no medical nexus opinion was drafted. The talking points should reference a nexus letter if one exists, not write one.
- [ ] Verify that evidence references list only documents you actually have. Do not go into the conference referencing records you have not seen.
- [ ] Confirm the closing ask is specific and accurate: what exactly are you asking the reviewer to do?
- [ ] Have your accredited VSO or representative review these talking points before the call.
- [ ] Confirm the talking points do not exaggerate symptoms or severity beyond what your records actually show.

## Sample output

Sample output. Generated by AI from sample inputs:

Veteran: Marcus Hale. Army logistics NCO, 9 years service. Appealing the rating decision dated March 15, 2026 for bilateral tinnitus (ringing in ears), which was service-connected at 0% (non-compensable). Believed error: the VA exam report used to rate the condition did not address the frequency and severity of the ringing or its effect on sleep and concentration. The veteran's personal statement describing those impacts was in the file but the decision did not mention it. Evidence to reference: VA audio exam report dated January 10, 2026; veteran's personal statement dated February 1, 2026. No representative listed.

Talking points for HLR informal conference:

Opening:
My name is Marcus Hale. I am calling about the Higher-Level Review of the rating decision for bilateral tinnitus dated March 15, 2026. I am asking for a review of that decision because I believe the evidence in my file was not fully addressed.

The specific error:
The rating decision assigned 0% for bilateral tinnitus. The VA audio exam report from January 10, 2026 confirmed the diagnosis. However, the decision did not address the functional impact of the condition that I described in my personal statement. My statement, which is in the file dated February 1, 2026, describes the ringing occurring daily, disrupting my sleep several nights a week, and making it difficult to concentrate in noisy environments. The reasons and bases section of the decision does not mention that statement or explain why the functional impact was not considered.

Evidence to reference:
1. VA audiology examination report, January 10, 2026: confirms bilateral tinnitus diagnosis. I am asking the reviewer to confirm whether this report addressed frequency and severity of symptoms.
2. Personal statement of Marcus Hale, February 1, 2026: describes daily tinnitus, disrupted sleep, and difficulty concentrating. I am asking the reviewer to confirm this document was in the file and was considered.

Closing ask:
I am asking the reviewer to determine whether the February 1, 2026 personal statement was fully considered, and if not, to correct the decision accordingly.

Note: These are talking points to organize what I want to say. They are not a legal argument. I will confirm the specifics with a VSO before the call.

## Customization notes

Run this prompt once per condition being appealed in the HLR. If you are appealing multiple conditions in one HLR, build separate talking points for each to keep the conference organized. If your appeal involves a mental health condition or PTSD-related stressor, include the Veterans Crisis Line reminder (988, then press 1) and work with an accredited VSO who has experience with those claims. If the error involves a regulation or rating criteria question rather than overlooked evidence, your accredited representative is the right person to frame that argument, not this prompt.

---

From The VA & Benefits Navigator Library at vetslearn.com/libraries/va