### UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O 

### . 00-1534 S YBL E 

### M. V AUGHN 

### , A PP EL L ANT 

### /P ETI TI ONER 

### ,

V 

### . ANTHONY 

### J. P RI NCI PI 

### , S EC RE T A RY O F 

### V ET ER A N S 

### A FF A I RS 

### , A PPEL L EE 

### /RES PO NDE NT 

### .

Be fore K R

A M E R , Chie f Judge , an d IV E RS an d S T E IN B E RG , Ju dge s .

O R D E R The appe l l ant , t he wi dow of v et er an Ed M. Vaug hn, s oug htr ev i ew, thr oug h co uns el , of a June 2, 2000 , dec i s i on of

the Boar d o f

Vet er ans ' Appeal s ( Boar d o rBVA ) that , i nt eral i a, den i ed Depart m e ntof Veter ans Af

f ai r s ( VA ) s erv i ce co nnect i on f orthe c aus e of

the v et er an' s dea t h. On Nov em ber30, 2000, the part i es f i l ed a j oi ntm ot i on f

or r em and of

the i s s ue o f

s erv i ce co nnect i on f

orthe c aus e of

the v et er an' s dea t h, ci t i ng the n eed f

orr eadj udi cat i on i n l i g htof t he e nact m ent , af t erthe J une 2000 Boar d d eci s i on, of the Veter ans Cl ai m s As s i s t ance Act of 2000 , Pub

. L

. No. 106- 475, 114 St at
. 20 96 ( Nov

. 9, 20 00) ( VC AA ) , and f urther m oved f

or dis m is sal of

the r em aining is sues. T he C ourt, v ia an order of the Clerk of

the Cou rt , g r ant ed thi s m ot i on on Decem ber 15, 2000

. On Janua ry 4, 2001 , t he appel l ant f i l ed a n ap pl i cat i on f

oran awa r d of r ea s on ab l e at t orne yf

ee s a nde xp en s es p ur s ua ntt o t he Equa l Ac ce s s t o Jus t i ce Ac t , 3 8 U. S

. C. § 2 4 1 2 (d ) (E A J A ). O n A p ri l 6 , 2 0 0 1 , th e Se c re ta ry f il e d a re sp o n se in o p p o si ti o n to th e a p p e ll a n t's a p p li c a ti o n . T h e Se c re ta ry ar g u e s t h a t th e a p p e ll a n t is n o t a p re va il in g p a rt y, a n d th a t th e Se c re ta ry's po sitio n a t bo th th e ad m ini stra tive an d litiga tio n sta ges o f the pro c e e din gs wa s sub sta nti a llyjustified

. See 28 U.S

. C. § 2412 ( d) ( 1) ( A). On A pr i l 19, 2001, the appel l antf i l ed a repl yto t he Secr et ary ' s r es pons e; the app ellant as sert s both that he wa s a prevail ing party and that the Sec retary ' s posit ion w as not subst antially just if ied at the ad m inis tr ativ e level

. On M ay29 , 20 01, the Uni t ed S t at es Supr em e Courti s s ued an o pi ni on i n Buckhann on Boar d a nd Car e Home, I

nc. v. Wes t

Vir gi ni a Dep'

t of Heal th a nd Human Res our ces , 121 S. Ct. 18 35 ( 2001 )

. Ther ei n, th e U .S

. S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e " c a ta lyst th e o ry" w a s n o t a p e rm is si b le b a si s for th e a w a rd o f a tt o rn e y' s f ees un derthe F ai rHous i ng Am endments Actof 19 88, 42 U. S. C. § 3613 ( c) ( 2) ( F HA A), andthe Am er i cans w i t h D isa bil itie s A c t of 19 90 , 42 U .S.C . § 12 20 5 (A D A ). Buckhann on , 1 2 1 S

. Ct

. a t 1 8 4 3. The U. S. Suprem e C ourt f

urther st ated that "[w]e ca nnot agr ee that the t erm ' prevail ing party ' author iz es f ede ral cou rt s to awa rd att orney ' s f

e e s to a plaint if

f who , bys im plyf

il ing a nonf

ri vol ous but nonetheless potentially m er i t l es s l awsu i t( i twi l l nev erbe det erm i ned) , has r eachedthe ' s oug ht

- af t erdes t i nat i on' wi t houtob t ai ni ng an yj ud i ci al r el i ef

. " I d. at 1 84 1. Bef or e r eachi ng thes e co ncl us i ons as t o the F HA A and t he ADA in Buckhann on , the Suprem e C ourt st a te d in th e ve ry fir st p a ra gra p h o f th e o p in io n : " N u m e ro u s fe d e ra l st a tu te s a ll o w c o u rt s to a w a rd a tt o rn e y' s f ee s a ndc os t s t o t he ' pr eva i l i ng p art y . ' " Id. at18 38. L at eri n i t s op i ni on, the S upr em e Courtno t ed that "C ongres s . . . has authori zed the awa rd of att orney ' s f

ees to the ' prevail in g party ' in num erous s tatutes in a dd itio n to tho se a t issu e h e re "

. Id. at 1839

. I ns t ruct i v el y , t he Sup r em e Cour t ci t ed t o the appen di x t o thedisse nt i ng op i ni on of Jus t i ce Br ennan i n M

ar ek v. Ches ny , 4 7 3 U

. S

. 1 , 4 3

- 5 1 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , w h i c h i n c l u d e s t he "Eq ua l Acce s s to Jus t i ce Act , 28 U. S

. C. § 2 41 2( b) , " id. at 49, as an exam ple of the "n um erous st atutes in a dd itio n to tho se a t issue he re " tha t au tho rize atto rne yf e e s f or p re vailin g pa rtie s. Buckhann on , 121 S.Ct. a t1 8 3 9

. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r tth e n n o t e d th a tit h a s " i n t e rp r e t e d th e s e fe e - s h i ft i n g p r o vi s i o n s c o n s i s t e n t l y, see H e nsle y v. E c ke rha rt , 4 61 U. S

. 4 24 , 4 33 , n . 7

. . . ( 19 83 )

. . . . " I d. at 1839 n. 4. M or eov er , thi s Court , i n ci t i ng t o Baumgar tner v. Har r is bur

g Hous

. Auth. , 21 F

. 3d 541 , 545 (3rd Cir

. 1994) , in s uppo r tof an expl anat i on as to t he cat al y s ttheo ry , st at ed that"[ a] l t houg h Baumgar tner and seve ra l of the ca ses it c ite d d o n ot in volve f e e s un de r the E A J A , the yare n on e the le ss instru c tive b e c a use ' [t ]he leg is lati ve hi st oryof s ection 2412 indicates that C ongres s intended that ' prevail ing party ' as used in th e [E A J A ] b e re a d c o n si st e n tl y w it h o th e r fe e -s h ifti n g st a tu te s.' Heer en v . Ci t y of James t own, Ky. , 39 F

. 3d 62 8, 63 1 ( 6th Ci r . 19 94 ) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed )

. " Lem atta v. Br own , 8 Vet. App. 50 4, 50 8 ( 1996 )

. Thus , the Suprem e C ourt' s disav ow al of the cataly sttheoryand its pronounc em ents r egarding the r elief r equ ir ed to obtain prevail ing -partys tatus call into quest ion a s ig nif icant porti on of

thi s C ourt' s exist ing p rev aili ng party jur ispru de nc e u nd e r th e E A J A

. Se e Se nza -G e l C orp . v. Se iffh art , 803 F

. 2d 661, 665 n. 5 (F ede ral C ir cuit i s boun d bySuprem e C ourt pr ece den t unti l otherw is e directed byCo ngr ess or Suprem e C ourt) ; Bethe a v. Derwins ki , 2 Vet. App. 25 2, 25 4 ( 1992 ) ( Courtpr eceden tm aybe ov er turned by , i nt eral i a, dec i s i on of U .S. Su pre m e C ou rt). I n v i ew of

the U. S. Supr em e Court ' s op i ni on in Buckhann on , the Courtr equi r es s uppl em ent al bri e f ing from the pa rtie s ad dre ssing the f oll ow ing issue s: ( 1) Wh atapp l i cabi l i t ydo es the h ol di ng of the U. S. Supr em e Courtr eg ar di ng prevail ing -partys tatus under the FH A A a n d the A D A have upon a claim f or r easona ble at t orne yf

ee s u nd erthe EAJ A? (2) W ha t eff

e c t, if an y , doe s the ho ldi ng o f

th e Su pre m e C ou rt rega rdi ng p re vailin gpart ys t atus hav e up on t he appel l ant ' s cl ai m f or r eas onab l e at t orney f

ees and expen s es un der t he EAJA in the i ns t antcas e? U pon co nsiderati on of

the f oregoing , itis O R D E R E D that, not later than 30 day s af ter the date of

thi s order, the appellant f il e w ith the Co urt and s erv e on the S ecr et arya s uppl em ent al br i ef add r es s i ng the abov e qu es t i ons . I ti s f ur t her OR DE RE D t hat , n ot lat erthan 30 day s af t erthe appel l ants erv es hers uppl em ent al br i ef , the S e c re ta ry f

il e a re sp o n se to th is o rd e r a n d th e a p p e ll a n t's su p p le m e n ta l b ri e f. D A T E D : J u l y1 2 , 2 0 0 1 P E R C U R I A M.