UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 97-2323
J A M ES F. F R I TZ , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. T OGO D. W EST , J R ., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
. On Appellant' s Application for A ttorney Fe es and Expenses
(De cided Apr il 18, 2000 )

Kenneth M. Carpenter , o f T op e ka , K ans a s, wa s o n th e ple a din g s f or the a pp e lla nt. Leigh A. Bradley , G e ne ra l Co un se l; Ro n G arv in , Assistant G ener al C o u n s el ; and Michae l A. Le on ar

d , Deputy Assistant Gener al Counsel, a ll of Washington, D.C., wer e on the plea dings f or the appe llee.
Be fore NEB EKER, Chief Judge , and KRAMER and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. STEI NB ERG, Judge : Be fore this Court i s the appe llant's D ece mber 7, 1998, a pplication for attorney fee s and ex penses under t he Equal Acc ess to J ustice Ac t, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (EAJA), and his De c e mbe r 2 1, 19 99 , su pp le me nta l EA JA a

pp lic a tio n. F or the re a so ns that f oll ow , th e Court

wi ll g rant the 1998 EA J A application and deny the 1999 supplemental EAJA application.

I. Re le va nt Bac kgr ound The unde rly ing f

acts a re se t forth in our prior opinion i n this case. Fr itz v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 190 (1999). Br iefly , the pertinent fac ts f ollow: The appellant, veter an J ames F . Fr itz , appea led pro

se a September 22, 1997, decision of the Board of Veter ans' Appea ls (B VA). On J anuar y 28, 1998, Ke n n e th M

. Ca

r p e n te r , E s qu ir e , f

il e d an a p p e ar an c e o n b e h a lf o f th e a p p e ll an t; o nFe bruary

20, 1998 , t he appe llant's c ounsel filed a f ee a g ree ment. On Novembe r 10, 1998, the Court issued an2

order g ranting a Novem b er 5 , 1 9 9 8, joint mot ion for re mand, vac ating the September 1997 BV A decision, and r emandingthe matter f or re adjudication. On De c e mbe r 7 , 1 99 8, the a pp e lla nt ti mel y fi le d th e EA JA a pp lic a tio n f

or $4 ,5 39 .7 6 in attorney fee s and expenses. On De cembe r 17, 1998, the Sec re t ar y filed a r esponse in which he

conce ded that his position in this c ase w as not substantially justified; he did not therefor e conte st the app li c a ti o n
. O n D e c e mb e r 2 2 , 1 9 9 8 , th e Co u rt, thr o u g h th e Cl e r k o f th e Co u rt, o r d e r e d th at the application be he ld in abey ance ; that the appellant' s att o rn ey ei t h er show cause why the fe e agr ee m en ts h o u l d

n o tb e f o u n d u n re as o n ab l e o r f

i l e a n am en d ed agr ee m en t ; an d t h at t h e p ro ce ed i n gs on the application be stay ed pendingfurther order of the Court. On J anuar y 11, 1999, the attorne y responde d. On April 29, 1999, the Court issued an or der dire cting the Secr et ar y t o reply to the attorney ' s response, a

nd the Secr etar

y filed a r esponse to that orde r on Jul y 6, 1999. On No v em b er

2 3 , 1 9 9 9 , t h e C o u rt i s s u edan o p i n i o n h o l d i n g, i n t er al i a, t h at ce rt ai nl an gu age in the fee ag ree ment was " contra ry to the interpre tation in this Court's case law of the plain mea ning of the EAJA statute -- that the attorne y is not to use his judgme nt alone as to whe ther the a ppellant sh ou ld app ly for EAJ A fees -- and [ wa] s th us un reas on abl e on it s fa ce." Fr itz , 13 Vet.App. at 193. After noting that, except for the err ant fee -ag ree ment provision, the Court was " prepa red to a war d the full amount of fe es and e x penses r equeste d" to tha t p o i n t, the Court held in abey ance further proce eding s on the uncontested E AJ A application and direc ted the appe llant to file a ver ification as to whether

or not he a

pproves of

the s ubmission of the instant EAJA application. Fr itz , 13 Vet.App. at 1 93 , 1 96

. O n D e c e m b e r 21 , 1 99 9, th e app ell ant fi led a "S UB MI S S I ON U N D ER P R OTES T OF V ER I FI CA T I O N O F A PP ELLA N T O F H I S C ONS EN T TO C OUN S EL ' S S UB MI S S I ON OF AN E A JA A PP LI CA T I O N T O T H I S C O U RT " , a s w e ll a s a s u p p le me n ta l E A JA a

p p li c a ti o nf

o r ana d d it ional $ 2 , 6 6 5

. 9 8 i nat t o rn ey

fe es an d ex p en s es f

o r h i s at t o rn ey 's "s u cc es s fu l d ef en s e o f t h e [ a] p p el l an t 's EAJA application." Supplemental Application at 1, 4. On Fe bruar y 17, 2000, the Secret ar y filed

a re sponse, opposing the supplemental a pplication.

II. Ana lys is When, as here , an EAJA application is ti mely filed and me ets any

applicable content

re qu ir e me nts , th is C ourt is required to awar d attorney

fee s "unle ss the [C] ourt finds that the position3

of t he U ni ted S tat es w as s ub st ant ial ly ju st if ied or th at sp eci al circ um st ances mak e an aw ard u nj us t". 28 U. S.C. § 2 41 2( d) (1 )( A) ; Sti llwe ll v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 291, 301 (1994). "It is unquestioned that EAJA fees ar e ava ilable for litig ation over the EAJA application it self and that an award of fee s and expenses for that pur

pose would g ener ally

follow from succ es s i n t h e basic EAJA application"

. Coo k v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 226, 240 ( 1994), aff' d on other grounds , 68 F.3d 447 ( Fe d. Cir. 1995);

ac c or d Sa nd ov al v . B ro wn , 9 Ve t.A

pp . 1 77 , 1 81 -8 2 ( 19 96 ); Cam ph or v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 272, 277 (1 99 5) ; Cur tis v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 104, 108 ( 1995). A. 1998 EA JA Appli cation Be cause the appe llant has filed a verific ation as to his approva l of the submission of the 1998 EAJA application, the Court will lift t he stay imposed by

the Court' s November

23, 1999, opinion

an d will gr ant that EAJA application in full. Se e Fr itz , 1 3 V e t

. A p p
. a t 1 9 6 ( n o t i n g t h a t " Cou rtis prep ar e d to aw ar d

th e f u ll a mo u n t o f

f e e s an d e xp e n s e s r e qu e s te d " a f

te r Co u rt h a s r e c e iv ed "ve rification from the appe llant that he appr oves of the E AJ A application submi tted here ")

. B. 1999 Su

pplem ental EA JA Appli cation The appellant contends that an aw ard of supplemental fe es should flow fr om his success as to the basic EAJ A application beca use he was required to "de fend his EAJA application ag ainst the Secre tary ' s contention that the provisions of t h e . . . fee a g ree ment wer e ' possibly confusingor mis le a din g to t

he c li e nt' " a nd

to " de fe nd " bo th t

he EA JA a

pp lic a tio n a

nd the fe e a g re e me nt i n response to this C ourt' s Dec ember 22, 1998, show-ca use order

. To support the latter a rg ument, he

a s s e rt s t h a tt h i s C o u rti s ana g e n c y o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s g o v e r n m e n tw i t h i nt h e m e an i n g o f t h e E A JA beca use " under the definitions contained in 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)( 2)(C), the ' United States' includes

any a g e nc y a nd any of fi c ia l of the Un ite d Stat e s ac tin g in h is o r h e r o ff ic ia l c a pa c ity " and

be c a us e this Court was cre ated unde r Article Iof the U.S. Constitut ion. Supplemental Application at 2. First, as the Secre tary

has pointed out, beca

use this Court has held that " the Court is not an

a g e nc y of the Un ite d St a te s f

or EA JA purp os e s" , th a t latte r a rgume nt ( a s to the a c tio ns of thi s Co ur t) must fail. W

is ne r v . W

est , 12 Vet.App. 330, 334 ( 1999). Second, notwithstanding the fa ct that "E AJ A fee s are available for litiga tion over the EAJA application" , Cook , su pra ; see also Sandoval , Camphor , and Cur tis , a ll su pra , in this case the activity subsequent to the orig inal EAJA application4

in vo lv ed fe e-agreem ent is su es t hat "relat e to th e EAJ A ap pl ica ti on on ly in a col lat eral way ." Shaw v. Gobe r , 10 Vet.App. 498, 502 ( 1997). In Shaw , the Court held:

Re g ard ingthe a mou

nt .

. . so ug ht f

or fe e s in c on ne c tio n w iththe 38 U. S.C. § 7263(c) proce eding initiated by the Court, the Court w ill deny these fee s fo r t he following rea sons. The sec tion 7263 review c arr ied out and discussed in pa rt I I ., below, wa s raised by the Court pur suant to its independe nt power unde r that sec tion. Fe es for repr esentation on those fee- ag ree ment issues are unlike "f ees for fee s", the EAJA fees for

repr esentation in the lit iga tio n over the EAJA application itself. . . . The fe e-a g ree ment litigation thus does not involve the Unit ed S tates, t he par ty that pa y s E AJA a

wa rd s, in the same wa

y a s d oe s th e lit ig a tio n o ve r t he un de rl y ingc a se and ov e r t he EA JA a

pp lic a tio n. Th e me re fa c ts that th e a pp ellan t in c lud e d in

his EAJA application a

reque st for fe es for

respondingto the Court order or that issues raised by the Court about the re asonable ness of c erta in provisions of the fee ag ree ment also involve consideration of t heir relationship to an awa rd of EA J A fe es do not make the f

ee- ag ree ment issues a par t o f t h e u n d erly ing suc cessf ul liti g ation over the BV A dec ision that the appellant bro u gh t t o t h e Court. Acc ording ly , the Court holds that the fee -ag ree ment litigation is not a part of the "c ivil ac tion broug ht ag ainst the United States" for pur poses of 28 U. S

. C

. § 2412(d)( 1)(A) and [ Commissioner, INS v. ] Jean , [4 9 6 U

. S. 1 5 4 , 1 5 7 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ]. Shaw , 10 Vet.App. at 501-02. I n th e ins tant c a se , th is Cou rt , su a sp on te , r a ise d th e fe e -a g re e me nt i ssu e s p ur su ant t o it s independe nt power und er 38 U.S.C. § 7263(c) to re view such f ee a g ree ments on its own moti on. Fr itz v . W est , U.S. V et. App. No. 97-2323, order at 1 (De c. 22, 1998). Acc ording ly , we will deny the appe llant's 1999 suppleme ntal EAJA application.

III. Conclusi on U p o nc o n s i d e r a t i o no f t h e f o r e g o i n g an a l y s i s , t h e E A JA a p p l i c a t i o n , t h e s u

p p l e m e n t a l E A JA ap p l i ca t i o n , t h e f

ee agr ee m en t , an d

t h e p l ea d i n gs o f t h e p ar t i es , t h e s t ay i mp o s edb y t h e C o u rt 's N o v e mb e r

2 3 , 1 9 9 9 , o p i n i o ni s l i f

t e d , an d t h e C o u rtg r an t s t h e a

p p e l l an t ' s D e c e m b e r

7 , 1 9 9 8 , E A JA application and de nies his Dece mber 21, 1999, supplementa l EAJ A application. APPL I CATI ON GRANTE D; SUPP L EMENTAL APPL I CATI ON DEN I ED.