Seven Principles Review: Current DBQ Prices and Old Fee Pages

Seven Principles appears to have changed businesses in a meaningful way. Its current homepage markets a flat-price medical-evidence service: $750 for one DBQ or nexus letter, $500 each when buying two or more, no percentage of back pay, and no VA.gov or ID.me password.

An older FAQ remains reachable on the same domain with a very different offer. It describes a $500 retainer and success fees that could reach $12,000. A 2024 VA warning letter also discusses that former claims-consulting model. Search engines still surface pieces of both versions.

The current offer should not be judged as if the old contract automatically remains in force. The old pages should not be ignored either. A buyer needs to know which legal entity, service, agreement, fee, provider, and data workflow apply to the order placed today.

I built Claim Raven, which competes for veterans researching paid claims help, so this review has a commercial conflict. Claim Raven provides self-directed software, not medical opinions, DBQs, legal representation, or filing. This review is based on public sources checked August 27, 2026. I did not purchase the service, inspect a delivered report, see a current service-specific agreement, verify a complete physician roster, or audit Seven Principles' systems.

TL;DR

• Seven Principles currently calls itself a Medical Evidence Division and sells physician-prepared DBQs and nexus letters.
• One document is advertised at $750. Two or more cost $500 each, so two are $1,000, three are $1,500, and four are $2,000.
• It also advertises $1,500 filing services for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation and discharge-upgrade petitions, plus a $3,000 upfront white-glove option including up to two medical documents. Additional terms apply.
• The current site says there are no back-pay, performance, percentage, or monthly fees and that standard medical-evidence services do not require VA.gov or ID.me credentials.
• The public return policy says all sales are final and no refund will be issued. The reviewed site does not publish a service-specific rule for clinician refusal, insufficient records, factual corrections, or quality disputes.
• An older FAQ still describes a $500 retainer and performance fees based on rating or compensation increases. Treat it as conflicting legacy copy, not proof of a current customer's fee.
• VA OGC sent Seven Principles a warning letter in May 2024 about possible unauthorized claims activity and fees under the former model. The company's founder reportedly said he did not receive or see it. The letter was not a final adjudication.
• Seven Principles says appeals are handled by independent accredited attorney partners, not by Seven Principles itself. Ask who the partner is, whether representation is accepted, and what separate agreement or fee applies.
• The privacy policy permits collection of SSNs, health and financial data, passwords, app permissions, analytics, targeted advertising, and AI processing through providers including OpenAI. The medical-record flow deserves a specific explanation before upload.

What Seven Principles sells now

The current homepage presents Seven Principles as a veteran-owned Medical Evidence Division. It markets Disability Benefits Questionnaires and nexus letters prepared by medical professionals exercising independent judgment.

The process is described as:

1. the veteran shares information for a medical-evidence review;
2. Seven Principles discusses which documents may be appropriate;
3. payment is completed;
4. the veteran is scheduled with a medical professional;
5. the physician reviews records and performs an evaluation when appropriate;
6. the document is prepared and receives an administrative quality check; and
7. the veteran self-submits it or may use a courtesy fax option where available.

The company says standard medical-evidence services do not require access to a VA.gov or ID.me account. That is a useful current boundary, especially because the historical service materials discussed account access and claim submission.

The current site also says medical professionals make their own decisions. Seven Principles does not guarantee a rating or approval. That is the correct basic principle for any private evidence vendor.

Current Seven Principles price math

The present medical-evidence menu is simple enough to calculate:

The two-document discount is large. A buyer considering one $750 document may be encouraged to add a second for $250 more. Buy a second document only if it answers a separate, necessary medical question. A discounted document that adds no material evidence still costs $500 and can create inconsistencies.

The site also lists:

• $1,500 to help prepare and file a DIC claim for a surviving spouse;
• $1,500 to prepare and file a discharge-upgrade petition; and
• $3,000 upfront for an optional white-glove service that includes up to two DBQs and/or nexus letters, with additional eligibility and terms.

Those filing services are not merely medical documents. Ask who performs the claim-specific work, whether the person is accredited or licensed for the task, what forms and submissions are included, and which separate agreement governs the service.

What the public price still does not tell you

A flat price answers only one part of the transaction. The public pages reviewed do not identify a complete provider roster or service-specific agreement covering every failure scenario.

Before paying, request a written scope stating:

• the exact document and medical theory;
• all records the physician will review;
• whether an interview, video evaluation, testing, or in-person examination is included;
• the assigned physician's name, license, state, specialty, and board certification;
• the delivery time;
• the number of factual corrections and substantive revisions;
• what happens if the physician cannot support the requested opinion; and
• who responds if VA questions the report.

An administrative quality check can catch formatting and completeness errors. It must not predetermine the clinician's medical conclusion.

The all-sales-final return policy

Seven Principles' Return Policy, last updated January 1, 2025, says all sales are final and no refund will be issued.

That is a material term because the current process says payment occurs before the physician is scheduled. The public policy does not explain exceptions for:

• a physician declining to write a favorable opinion;
• insufficient or illegible records;
• inability to match the case to a qualified provider;
• a DBQ that requires an examination the service cannot provide;
• missed delivery dates;
• factual errors; or
• a document that does not match the order.

The absence of public exceptions does not prove the company never resolves a legitimate problem. It means the buyer should obtain the service-specific remedy in writing before paying.

The Terms of Service, last updated January 1, 2026, identify Seven Principles Corporation, doing business as Seven Principles, with a Houston address. They apply Texas law, call for AAA arbitration in Harris County for many disputes, and impose a one-year period for claims. They also contain a client-conduct policy allowing termination without a refund in stated circumstances.

Those appear to be broad website or platform terms, not a complete medical-evidence agreement. Read the order-specific terms too.

The old fee model is still visible

The legacy FAQ describes a different Seven Principles offer. It includes a $500 retainer and performance fees:

• for a veteran starting at zero, $3,000 for an award below 100 percent or $7,500 for a 100 percent rating;
• for a veteran already rated at 10 percent or more, the greater of 20 percent of retroactive compensation or five times the monthly increase; and
• a stated $12,000 cap.

Historical pages also described broad claim management, claim submission, evidence development, C&P coaching, and access to doctors or attorneys. Some legacy URLs now redirect to the current homepage, while the old FAQ remained accessible during this review.

The current homepage directly conflicts with that model by saying no back-pay fees, no success fees, no percentage of compensation, and no monthly fees. The reasonable inference is that Seven Principles repositioned its main offer. It would be irresponsible to quote the old formula as the current price for a $750 document.

It would also be irresponsible to make a buyer guess. Seven Principles should remove or label obsolete fee pages. Until then, ask the sales team to identify the exact offer and contract in writing. If anyone quotes a success fee during a current medical-evidence sale, stop and reconcile it with the homepage before proceeding.

The 2024 VA warning letter

On May 2, 2024, VA's Office of General Counsel sent a warning letter to Seven Principles. The letter said VA had information the company "may be engaged" in unauthorized preparation, presentation, or prosecution of claims and charging fees.

VA cited the former website's descriptions of analysis, evidence development, claim submission, VA correspondence, account information, and the retainer-plus-performance-fee model. It said its organization search did not list Seven Principles as recognized and that it could not identify a named accredited attorney or claims agent on the site.

The letter recommended reviewing the business practices, ceasing unlawful activity if applicable, and responding within 30 days. It warned that conduct could be referred to law enforcement. That is serious regulatory correspondence. It is not a court judgment or final published finding that Seven Principles committed a violation.

The War Horse/NPR investigation reports that founder Chas Sampson denied receiving or seeing the letter and describes the later shift toward medical evidence. The reviewed sources do not show a public formal resolution.

The current service model changes the facts that a regulator or buyer would evaluate. A physician can provide private medical evidence without representing the veteran before VA. The current DIC, discharge, white-glove, courtesy fax, and attorney-referral services still deserve clear scope and credential disclosures.

Accreditation and attorney referrals

Seven Principles says legal representation for Supplemental Claims, Higher-Level Reviews, Board appeals, and other matters is provided by independent accredited attorney partners, not by Seven Principles directly. It may coordinate an introduction when appropriate.

An introduction is not representation. The attorney must evaluate the matter, accept it, enter a separate relationship, be accredited, and explain any fee. Verify the individual in VA's accreditation directory. Do not assume the medical-evidence payment includes the attorney's work.

For the $1,500 DIC and discharge-upgrade filing services, ask who prepares and submits the forms. DIC is a VA survivor-benefit claim. A military discharge-review petition goes to a service review board. The rules and representative qualifications are not identical.

If all you need is initial-claim assistance, a VA-accredited VSO representative can help free. If you need a private medical document, accreditation does not replace clinician licensure. Verify the person performing each role under the system that governs that role.

Physician identity and medical fit

The homepage says Seven Principles works with qualified physicians who prepare DBQs and nexus letters based on independent medical judgment. It does not publish a full roster with names, active licenses, specialties, and document types.

Ask for the proposed physician's identity before the sale becomes final. Verify the license with the state board and any board certification with the relevant certification body. Ask whether the physician has experience with the condition and the exact medical question.

A flat $750 document can be good value if the provider is qualified, reviews the right records, performs an adequate evaluation, and explains the reasoning. It can be poor value if the clinician's expertise is remote from the condition or the report is a conclusion pasted onto an incomplete history.

For a DBQ, confirm that the current form is used and the appointment model can support each required finding. For a nexus letter, define whether the question is direct service connection, secondary causation, aggravation, toxic exposure, or another theory.

How VA treats private medical evidence

VA permits veterans to submit private evidence. Its public DBQ guidance says a health-care provider may complete an appropriate public form, VA will not reimburse the cost, and VA may still require another examination.

A purchased report does not win because it is called a nexus letter or DBQ. VA can weigh the author's qualifications, the examination, factual accuracy, reasoning, and consistency with other evidence. A clinician must be free to reach an unfavorable or qualified conclusion.

Seven Principles' current no-guarantee statement is therefore important. Company testimonials or a legacy success-rate claim should not be converted into an expected probability for an individual claim.

Privacy and medical-record handling

Seven Principles' privacy policy, updated January 1, 2026, covers a broader product ecosystem than the medical-evidence homepage alone.

It says the company may collect names, contact details, usernames, passwords, billing information, Social Security numbers or government identifiers, health data, financial data, racial or ethnic information, and creditworthiness data. Stripe handles payment data. The policy also discusses application access to geolocation, SMS, reminders, calendars, contacts, social accounts, and device information.

The policy permits analytics, targeted advertising, Google Analytics advertising features, social logins, offer-wall advertising, and AI products using third-party providers including OpenAI. It says personal information used by AI products may be shared with and processed by those providers.

The policy generally retains information as long as needed, with no stated purpose requiring retention beyond 36 months after account termination. It says information will be deleted, anonymized, or isolated when no legitimate need remains, subject to legal and backup constraints.

This does not prove medical records are sent to advertising or AI providers. The policy is broad enough that a buyer should ask for a medical-record-specific data map:

• Which system receives the C-file and health records?
• Which staff, physicians, attorney partners, and vendors can access them?
• Are medical records ever used in an AI feature, and can the veteran opt out before upload?
• Are health-data events used for advertising or analytics?
• How long does the company, physician, and each partner retain a copy?
• How can the veteran request access, correction, or deletion?

The homepage's promise that standard medical evidence does not need VA.gov or ID.me credentials is positive. It does not remove the need to evaluate how other sensitive data is handled.

Identity and address questions

The current terms identify Seven Principles Corporation, registered in Texas, and list 16420 Park Ten Place, Suite 510, Houston. The privacy policy and homepage use that address. The contact page also lists a Virginia Beach location and a Houston street number shown as 16542 Park Ten Place.

The BBB profile describes Seven Principles LLC in Virginia Beach and lists Chas Sampson as principal. The current About Us page says Sampson, an Army Iraq War veteran and former VA rater, founded the business in 2014.

An address typo or entity transition does not determine service quality. The buyer should know which entity is contracting and billing today. Ask the company to reconcile the Texas corporation, older Virginia LLC profile, and address difference before signing.

Reviews and complaint context

Seven Principles publishes testimonials and a Google-review rating on its site. Those are useful clues about customer themes but not proof of typical VA outcomes.

The BBB profile reviewed describes an older Virginia entity, is not BBB accredited, displays a B- rating, and cites one unanswered complaint. Its complaints page showed one complaint in the prior three years and none closed in the prior 12 months. The profile may not map cleanly to the current Texas corporation, so do not present it as a definitive grade for every current transaction.

Forum discussions contain positive and negative claims about the former service. They are especially hard to apply after a business-model change. A complaint about a 2023 performance fee does not tell us whether a 2026 $750 medical document is accurate. A current testimonial about a DBQ does not resolve the old regulatory concern.

Evaluate current evidence with current facts: service agreement, assigned physician, license, records list, report, invoice, support record, and privacy notice.

Who Seven Principles may fit

It may be worth evaluating if:

• you already understand the claim theory and need a defined DBQ or nexus opinion;
• the flat price is confirmed in writing;
• you can verify the physician and examination model before payment;
• you accept an all-sales-final policy;
• you are comfortable submitting the evidence yourself; and
• the data and AI disclosures are acceptable.

It may not fit if:

• you need a refund option;
• you need guaranteed full-service claim management;
• you need an accredited representative rather than an attorney referral;
• you cannot identify the physician before an irreversible payment;
• you expect a favorable medical conclusion; or
• the company cannot clearly distinguish the current agreement from legacy fee pages.

Alternatives to Seven Principles

1. A treating provider. Ask whether your clinician can complete a public DBQ or address the nexus question based on an established history.
2. A free accredited VSO representative. A VSO can identify evidence gaps and help file a claim without charging for the benefits-claim service.
3. An accredited attorney or claims agent. For an adverse decision involving law, procedure, or an inadequate exam, representation may be more useful than another paid report.
4. Another medical-evidence company. Compare final price, named provider, specialty, examination method, refund terms, revisions, and privacy.
5. Self-directed software. If the records already contain adequate medical evidence, organization and education may be the missing work.

For a wider view of current medical-evidence prices, see Claim Raven's nexus-letter company cost guide, Telemedica review, and XTerra Health review.

Seven Principles vs Claim Raven

Seven Principles sells physician-prepared medical documents. Claim Raven helps veterans organize and understand a self-directed claim. Claim Raven does not perform an exam, sign a DBQ, write a nexus opinion, file a claim, or provide representation.

Claim Raven's paid software plans currently range from $14.99 to $39.99. Its optional Pathfinder service is $500 paid once or six payments totaling exactly $500: five payments of $83.33 and a final payment of $83.35. Seven Principles advertises $750 for one medical document, $1,000 for two, and $3,000 for its current white-glove option. Refresh all prices on publication day.

If a medical opinion is truly missing, Claim Raven cannot create it. If a veteran already has adequate medical evidence and mainly needs organization, a paid DBQ or nexus letter may not solve the problem. Compare functions before prices.

Questions to ask Seven Principles before paying

1. Am I buying the current medical-evidence service, DIC/discharge service, or white-glove service?
2. Which legal entity and address will appear on my agreement and invoice?
3. Confirm that no legacy retainer or performance fee applies.
4. Who is the physician, and what are the license number, state, specialty, and board certification?
5. What records, interview, examination, and testing are included?
6. What happens if the physician cannot support the requested opinion?
7. Does the all-sales-final rule have any exception for non-delivery or inability to match a provider?
8. How many factual corrections and revisions are included?
9. Who performs the DIC, discharge, fax, or white-glove filing tasks?
10. Who is the attorney partner, and what separate agreement and fee apply?
11. Are medical records processed by an AI provider, analytics tool, or advertising system?
12. How long does every company and clinician retain my records?

Bottom line

Seven Principles' current medical-evidence offer is much easier to price than its historical claims-consulting model. One document costs $750, two or more cost $500 each, and the current site says there are no success or back-pay fees. That can be a reasonable research candidate for a veteran who knows exactly which medical document is missing.

The tradeoffs are substantial. Sales are publicly described as final. Provider identities and medical specialties are not presented in a complete roster. The privacy notice is broad. A service-specific agreement was not available in the reviewed public sources. The old performance-fee FAQ remains reachable, and the 2024 VA warning letter addressed that former business model.

Before paying, force the transaction into one coherent set of documents: current entity, current flat fee, current service agreement, assigned physician, refund and correction rules, and medical-record data flow. If the company can supply clear answers, judge the current service on those facts. If the answers mix old and new models, wait.

Sources and limitations

Sources checked August 27, 2026 include the Seven Principles current homepage, intake site, Return Policy, Terms of Service, privacy policy, About Us page, contact page, and legacy FAQ. Regulatory and outside context includes the May 2024 VA OGC letter, The War Horse/NPR investigation, and BBB profile. VA baseline sources include the public DBQ page and accredited-representative guide.

Legacy pages are labeled historical or conflicting and are not treated as current contract terms. Company claims about physicians, safeguards, satisfaction, and outcomes were not independently audited. The BBB profile may refer to an older entity. This review is not legal or medical advice. Refresh every page, agreement, provider credential, complaint source, and regulatory fact before publication.