UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 05-0914(E)
G OM I E L. M OL DEN , A PP EL L ANT ,

AND N O
. 06-0411(E)
H O M ER L. M OON EY , A PP EL L ANT ,

AND N O
. 06-1098(E)
C H U CK L. W ARRE N , J R ., A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. J A M ES B. P EA KE , M.D., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
. On Appellants' Applications for A ttorney Fe es and Expenses (De cided June 27, 2008 )

Gomie L. Molden, H

omer L. Mooney

, and Chuck L. W

arren, Jr., pro se. Paul J. Hutter, Ge ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , A ssi sta

nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Ed

war d V. Cassidy, Jr., De puty

As sis tant G e ne ra l Co un se l; B r ia n B

. R ippe l , Deputy Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Thomas J. Kniffen, Appellate A ttorney , all of Washington, D.C., for the appe llee.
Be fore HAGEL , L ANCE, and DA VI S, Judges

. DAVI S, Judge : These case s are befor e the Court on applications filed for fee s and expenses under the Equal Ac cess to Just ice Ac t (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). Al t h o u gh the proc edura l posture of e ach c ase diff

ers, the Court c onsolidated these cases–a ll repr esentative of seve ral similar

case s pending befor e the Court–to r esolve, by panel, whe ther a n appellant may

rec eive EA J A fe esB e c a u se it is no t b e fo re the C o u rt, the C o u rt d o e s n o t re a c h the issu e o f wh e the r E A J A fee s a re a v a ilab le 1 fo r w o rk p e rfo rm e d fo llo w ing su sp e n sio n
.

Ar k an s as s u s pen ded M r
. St an l ey as a r ec i pr oca l ma t t er a f t er l ea r n i n g t h at t h e Soc i al Se cu r i t y Admi n i s t r at i on 2 h ad s u s pen ded h i m f

r om pr ac t i ce on M ay 22, 2006, an d t h at V A h ad ca n ce l l ed h i s a cc r edi t at i on on O ct ober 10, 2001. M r. Stanl e y a d v i sed t he C o urt t hat he has ap p eal ed hi s sus p ensi o n wi t h t he A rkans as St at e B ar and i s await i ng t he o u tc o m e o f t h o se p ro c e e d ing s.

T he U

. S. C o urt o f

A p p eal s f

o r t he Fe d eral C i rcui t has co ncl ud ed t hat t he f ees need not have b een b i l l ed t o t he 3 cl i en t i n or der t o be "i n cu r r ed" ; a s l on g a s t h er e i s a n e x pr es s or i mpl i ed u n der s t an di n g t h at an EAJA aw ar d w ou l d be p a id to th e a tto rn e y, th e a p p e llan t ha s " inc u rr e d " leg a l f e e s. Phi l l i

ps v
. G en. Se r vs
. Adm i n. , 924 F. 2d 1577, 1583 ( Fe d. C ir. 1 9 9 1 ); see a lso S ec
. & Exc h

. C o m m ' n v. C o m serv C o rp ., 9 0 8 F .2 d 1 4 0 7 , 1 4 1 3 -1 6 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ).

2 and expenses for

a now- suspended attorney ' s pre- suspension work, and if so, the mea ns by which 1 an appe llant may

rec over suc h fee s and expenses.

I. AN AL YSI S Th e c omm on

thr e a ds c onne c tin ge a c h a pp e lla nt i n th is c on so lid a te d matte r a r e t he a pp e lla nts ' fo rm e r atto rn e y , Jam e s W. S tanle y , and the fe e a g re e me nts that e a c h a pp e lla nt e nte re d into w ithhim

. Mr. Molden, Mr. Mooney , and Mr. Warren eac h enter ed into a fee ag ree ment with Mr. Stanley that provided, in per

tinent part, that ea ch would pay Mr. Stanley a small reta iner upon the e x ecution of th e a gre em en t a n d 2 5 p er ce n to f a n y re tro ac t i v e b en ef

i t s aw ar d edas a r es u l to f M r. S t an l ey 's repr e s e n tati o n
. A f

te r th e Co urt le ar

n e d f r o m th e A r

k an s a s Su

p r e me Co urt Co mm itte e on Pr of e ssi on a l Cond

uc t that Mr. Stanle y ha d be e n susp e nd e d fr om pr a c tic e in Ar ka ns a s for fi ve y e ars , the Court place d Mr. Stanley on a nondis ciplinary suspension on May 11, 2007. See I n re: J ames 2 W . Stanley , U.S. Vet. App. No. 07- 8003 (orde r May 11, 2007). In eac h of t hese cases, EAJ A applications wer e filed befor e the Court seekingattorney fee s and costs for

Mr. Stanley ' s pre- suspension work. As a preliminary

matter, the Court sees no rea son to prec lude the appellants from rec eiving an EAJA aw ard for work pe rfor med while their attorney was in g ood standingwith this Court mere ly beca use he was subseque ntly

suspended f

rom prac tice. Th e a pp e lla nts inc ur re d atto rney

fe e s a nd e xpe ns e s; to s tr ip t

he m of the ir ri g ht t o h ave tho se 3 expenses paid by the Unit ed S tates due to no fault of their own does not comport wit h the leg islative purpose of

the statute. Se e Ma rc h v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A pp
. 16 3, 16 8 (1 99 4) (s tatin g that the purp os e3

of EAJA is "to remove the obstacle of attorne y fee s from cha lleng es to unrea sonable g overnme nt action" ). This Co urt h a s ju

r is d ic ti o n to aw ar d r e a s o n a b le f e e s an d e xp e n s e s f

o r w o r k p e r f o r me d by both attorney

and non-attorney

prac titioners pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)( B)

. SeeVeter ans Be nefits Act of 2002, Pub. L

. No. 107-330, § 403, 116 S tat. 2820, 2833 (2002). EA J A fe es may be

awa rd e d w he re the applic a tio n w a s f ile d w ith in t

he 30 -d ay EA JA a pp lic a tio n p e ri od

se t f or th i n 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)( B) and contains (1) a showing that the appe llant is a preva iling par ty ; (2) a showing that t h e ap pellant is a par ty elig ible for a

n awa rd bec ause his net wor

th does not exceed $2,000,000; (3) an a lleg ation that the S ecr etar y ' s position was not substantially justified; and (4) a

n itemiz ed st atement of the fees and expenses soug ht. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)( 1)(A) , (1)( B) , (2)( B) ; Scarborough v. Principi , 5 41 U.S

. 40 1, 40 7- 08 (2 00 4) ; Cullens v. Gober , 14 Vet.App. 234, 237 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( e n b an c )

. H e r e , th e C o urt w i l l d e t e r m i n e w h e th e r th e a

p p l i c a t i o n s s a t i s f

y th e a b o v e E A JA timing, and whe re contested, content require ments. In subsequent si ng le-judg e opini ons, the Court wi ll a dd re ss t he re a so na

ble ne ss o f t

he fe e s and

e xpe ns e s r e qu e ste d in

the pa rt ie s' EA JA a

pp lic a tio ns
. Eac h case will be addre ssed in turn. A. Chuck Warre n, 06-1098(E) T h e C o urt gra n t edth e p art i es ' j o i n tm o t i o nfo r p art i al re m an d an d d i s p o s edo f M r. W arre n 's underlying c ase on Ma

y 21, 2007. On J une 14, 2007, af ter Mr. Stanley ' s su s p en s ion, Mr. Warren filed a pr o se EAJA application reque sting attorney fee s in the amount of $2,225.94 and c osts in the amount of $50.00 for

Mr. Stanley ' s work per formed be tween Ma rch 27, 2006, a

nd May 10, 2007. With in t he a pp lic a tio n, Mr . War

re n pro vid e d an ite mize d list of " Se rv ic e s Re nd e re d, " purp or te dly for Mr. S t an l ey 's s ervices, but the list was not affir med by any attorney

. SeeW ar

r e nE A JA Application (App.) at 2. In his response to the EA J A application, the Sec reta ry first argues that Mr. Warr en lac ks standing as a pro se appellant to r equest attorney fee s. The Court disa g ree s that Mr. Warre n' s curr ent pro se status pre cludes a

n EAJA award. I t is true that non-attorne y pro se a ppellants ca

nnot rec eive

an EAJA aw ard unde r sec tion 2412(d) for time whe n the appe llant is not represe nted. See M arch, 7 V e t.A pp . at 16 8 ( " [A] pr o s e , n on -atto rn e y a pp lic ant' s c la im f

or fe e s und e r s e c tio n 2 41 2( d) mus t be de nie d. " ); see also Kay v . Ehrler , 499 U.S. 432, 437 (1991) ( interpre ting 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and4

ho l d i n g th a t " [a ] r

u l e th a t a u th o r i z e s aw ar d s o f c o un s e l f e e s t o p r o s e l i t i g an t s

– e v e n i f l i m i te d to those who are members of the bar–w ould cre ate a disincentive to employ

counsel whe never

such a plaintiff consider ed himself compe tent to liti g ate o n h i s own beha lf. The statutory policy of further ing the succe ssful prosec ution of meritorious claims is better ser ved by a rule that cre ates a n incentive to r etain counsel in eve ry case .")

. Th e Cou

rt re c og nize s a

dis tin c tio n b e tw e e n th a t sc e na ri o and a c ase suc h as this, where a pro se appellant se eks re imbursement of attorney fee s incurre d when the appe llant was re prese nted. Se e Zhe ng Luiv . Ch e rto

ff , 538 F. Supp. 2d 11 1 6 (D

. M i n n
. 2 008) (noting that an applica

nt's initial pro se status doe s not p re clude an EAJA award) . Nothing in the EAJA st atute mandates t h at an at t o rn ey file the a pplication. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412. I ndeed, the statute allows for the "pr evailingparty "–not t h e p re v ai ling attorney –to rec over f

ees a nd expenses incurre d. See id. Th e re fo re , to the e xtent th a t Mr . Warr e n in c ur re d atto rn e y

fe e s th a t w e re le g iti mate
and re a so n a ble duri ngthe pe nd e nc y

of his un de rl yinga

pp e a l, h e is e nti tle d to re imb ur se me nt o f t ho se fee s and may

proper ly rec over the m throug h a pro se EAJA application. Se e Ph ill ips , s up ra . Th e Se c re tary

a lso ur g e s thi s Cour

t to de ny the EA JA a

pp lic a tio n b e c a

us e , a lth ou g h it contains an itemized statement of hour s Mr. Stanley expended, it is not "ce rtified by any attorney of

rec ord." Secre tary ' s Response t o Warren EAJ A App. at 5. The EAJ A s tatute, howeve r, conta ins no

s u ch ce rt ification re quirement. See2 8 U

. S. C. § 2 4 1 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( r e qu ir in g " anit e mi ze d s tate me nt from any attorney . . . stating the actua l time e x pended and the r ate at which fe es and othe r expenses
we re c omp ute d" ); but see Shaw v. Gobe r , 1 0 V e t

. Ap p
. 4 9 8 , 5 0 0 ( 1 9 9 7 ) ( h old ing tha t the E A JA application satisfied the EAJA conte nt r equire ments beca use it c ontained, among other things, " an itemiz ed stateme nt of the fees soug ht . . . supported by an af fidavit from the a

ppellant' s counsel" ), overruled by C

arpenter v. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 64 (2001) (en banc)

. This Court does require that the bi lling afford the Court a hig h deg ree of ce rtainty that the hours we re e x pended. Cf. Baldri dge v. Nicholson , 1 9 V e t.A

pp
. 22 7, 23 5 ( 20 06 ) ( re qu ir inga de ta ile d f e e state me nt) . G e ne ra lly , b e c a us e prac titioners have a dut y of candor before the Court, a statement c ontained in an a pplication prepa

red

and su bmi tte d b y

the pr a c tit ion e r o n a

n a pp e lla nt' s b e ha lf

is s uf fi c ie nt f or the Court

to p ro c e e d to evaluate the re asonable ness of the f ees. See M O D EL R

U LES O F P R OF ' L C ON DU C T R. 3.3 (2007). He re, ho we ve r, be c a

us e the tim e re c or d on whi c h Mr. War re n' s app lic a tio n is bas e d w a s su bmi tte d w ith in a pro se EAJA application, it is not clear that it was " from any attorney ." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)( 1)(B ).5

The application mere ly

lists t asks per formed a

nd time spent. See Warren E AJ A App. at 5. The re is no certific ati on by

Mr. Stanley

that this is hi s rec ord, nor doe s the list take the form of a billing statement fr om Mr. Stanley

. See id. Mr. Warre n' s failure to provide the itemized statement either direc tly from his forme r
a tto rn e y or su pp or te d b y an affid avi t from h is f or me r atto rn e y

is n ot n e c e ssa

ri ly fata l to his

a pp lic a tio n. Am e ndme nt t o anEA JA a pp lic a tio n is ava ila

ble wh e re it " ' ar[i ]se [s] out of the c on du c t, transac tion, or occur

renc e set forth or attempted to be set forth' in the ini t i al ap p l i ca tion." Scarborough , 5 4 1 U. S

. at4 1 8 -1 9 (q u o t i n g F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 15(c)( 2)). This is not a ca se whe re the appellant wholly

failed to a ddress a

statutorily

articulated EAJA requireme nt; here, the appellant

subm it teda li stth at w as t echn ica ll y defi cie nt in th at i t i s n otcle ar t hatit is "from any att orn ey ." See Ba za lo v . W est , 150 F.3d 1380, 1384 ( Fe d. Cir. 1998) (holding that a mer e " statement that [the appellant] is a preva iling ' party ' satisfies eligi b i lity require ment for jurisdictional purpose s") . An amende d application providingan itemized statement from Mr. Stanley , in this case, would ar ise out of t he s ame con du ct "at tem pt ed t o b e set for th in th e in it ial app li cat io n. " See Sc arborough , 5 41 U. S. at 418-19. More over, the Secre tary has fa iled to alleg e that prejudice would result i f t his Court were to allow amendment. See id. a t 42 2. Th e re fo re , th e Court wi ll a llo w M r. War

re n le ave to ame nd

his application t o i nclude a

statement of itemized fee s from his former attorney within 30 day s of the date of this opini on. B. G omie Molden, 05-0914(E) On Fe bruar

y 21, 2007, the Court vacated and rema nded a Boa

rd dec ision holdi ng that new and mater ial evidenc e had not be en subm itted to reope n Mr. M olden' s service -conne ction claim for

anan xi e ty

d i s o r d e r
. O nM ar c h9 , 2 0 0 7 , th e C o urtr e c e i v e d M r
. M o l d e n ' s p r e m a tur e E A JA application, submitted by his the n-re prese ntative, Mr. Stanley

. In it, Mr. Molden reque sts attorney fee s in the amount of $2,892.86 and c osts in the amount of $ 75.00 for wor k perf ormed by Mr. Stanley

betwee n Marc h 3, 2005, and F ebrua ry 26, 2007. On May 15 , 2 00 7, fo ur

da y s af te r Mr . St anle y ' s su sp e ns ion , p ro c e e din g s in Mr . M old e n' s c a se
wer e stay ed by

order of the Clerk of

t he Court (Clerk) until further notice of the Court. On September 25, 2007, the stay wa s lifted, and the Cler k filed the Mar ch 2007 EAJA application,6

which had been prepa

red and submitt ed by Mr. S tanley

. At the t ime of t he fili ng of the a pplication, Mr. Stanley

was not authorized to pra ctice be fore the Court. There is no question that Mr. Molden' s EAJ A applicati o n wa s s u bmitted outsi de of the

a pp lic a tio n p e ri od

. An EA JA a pp lic a tio n is tim e ly su

bmi tte d wi thi n 30 da

y s of fi na l ju dg me nt. See Luyster v. Principi , 16 Vet.App. 96, 99 (2002). In this case , beca use j udg ment beca

me final on May 15, 2007, the EAJA application should have bee n submitt ed betwe en May 15, 2007, and June 14, 2007. Be cause it was submitted on March 9, 2007, the a pplication was pre mature. Ag ain, this error

is not fatal to the appe llant's ap p lication. I f it is not returned to the appellant, a

premature EAJA application will be trea ted as if it h ad b ee n l ater filed. See M arch , 7 Vet.App. at 166. Under Court proc edure s, the Clerk is authorized to stamp the application filed on the first day

of the 30-da

y EAJA-application period. See id. Be cause the Clerk initiated a stay in the case , that proce dure w as not followed here. Pursuant to the Court's discussion in March , the Court will now deem the EAJA application in this case as having been t imely filed on May 15, 2007. The Sec reta

ry argues, however, that the application should be dismissed because it was filed by the Clerk a t a t ime when Mr. Stanley was suspende d, and that Mr. Molden, pr ocee ding pr o se, does not have standing to submit an EAJA application to the Court. The Court disag ree s with the Secre tary ' s latter conte ntion for the re asons set for th in Part I .A above. The Court agr ees, how ever , with the former ; once suspende d, Mr. Stanley was no long er e ligible to pra ctice b efore the Court and there fore could not f

ile any document, includingan EAJA application, with the Court. See U. S. V ET
. A PP
. R. 46(a) ( "Aperson of g ood moral cha

rac ter a nd repute who has be en admitted to pra ctice in . . . the highe st court of any state . . . and is in good standingthere in, may be admitted to the bar of the Court

. . . . " ). Un de r s uc h c ir c ums tanc e s, Mr . St anle y sh ou ld h ave e ith e r so ug ht le ave to f ile the EA JA a

pp lic a tio n o r sh ou ld have re qu e ste d that Mr

. Mo lde n fi le his a pp lic a tio n p ro se . H e did

ne ith e r. Ho we ve r, a s e xpla ine d b e low , b e c a us e our d ism iss a l of

the EA JA a

pp lic a tio n c ou ld c a

us e financ ial harm to the veter an, the Court finds that g ood cause exis ts in thi s case to suspend the prac titioner require ments of Rule 46, and permit the filing of the a pplication. SeeU.S. V ET
. A PP
. R. 2 (allowing the Court to suspend any Court rule for

g ood cause ). The prospe ct of fina

nci al h ar m t o the veter an is a c oncer n to the Court; if dismi ssal may financ ially

disadvantag e the appellant, and "where the er ror is not eg reg ious and is easily reme died,"T h e Cour t n ot es t h at , a l t h ou g h n ot di r ec t l y a t i s s u e h er e, M r
. St an l ey ' s f ee ag r ee men t i n e ac h c as e pr ov i des f or 4 a 2 5 p e rc e n t co n ting e n c y fee fo r p a st-d u e b e n e fit s. T h is a m o u n t ex c e e d s the sta tuto ry m a x im u m o f 2 0 p e rc e n t o f p a stdu e be n e f

i t s al l owed un de r 38 U. S. C. § 59 04 ( d) , a n d, c on s e qu e n t l y , VA w ou l d n ot be ob l i g a t e d u n de r 38 C. F. R. § 20

. 60 9(h ) (2 0 0 7 ), to w i t hh ol d at t orn ey f ees out of

a pas t

- due ben ef

i t s awa r d. "H owever , t he mere f act t hat a f

ee pur s uan t t o a non- di r ect

- pay f ee agr eement ex cee ds t he 20 [ perc ent ] does not make i t ' pat ent l y un r eas onabl e on i t s f ace ' such t h at t h er e s h ou l d be a n ' i n t r u s i on ' i n t o t h e ag r ee men t e n t er ed i n t o by t h e at t or n ey a n d h i s c l i en t

. " C arpent er , 1 5 V et

. A p p
. at 76 (quo t i ng Si l v e r m an v
. Br own , 7 V e t.A p p
. 4 8 7 , 4 8 8 (1 9 9 5 )) . T h e re fo re , M r. S ta n le y c o u ld c o n c e iva b ly p u rs u e the a g re e d up o n c o n ting e n c y fee d ire c tly w ith the a p p e llan t.

In add i t i o n, t he C o urt f

i nd s no harm i n the f

ee agreem ent ' s f

ai l ure t o e xp res sl y p rovide f o r E A JA f

ees. "[W ]ork do ne by an at t orn ey i s comp ens abl e u nder t he E A JA .

. . i f t he att orn ey ha s been empo wer ed by an ag r eement –whi ch cr ea t es a n a t t or n ey - cl i en t r el at i on s h i p–t o do w or k on be h al f of t h e appe l l an t

. " S i m i l es v
. W est , 11 V et

. App. 115, 120 ( 19 98 )

. T o be el i gi bl e f or f ees , t hos e f

ees mus t ha ve b ee n " i nc urre d " b y t he prev ai l i ng par t y , an d t her e mus t be an

" exp res s o r i m p l i ed ag r ee men t t h at t h e f ee a wa r d w i l l be pa i d ov er t o t h e l eg al r epr es en t at i v e. " Phi l l i ps , 924 F. 2d at 1583. Con s i der i n g t h at e ac h a ppel l an t s i g n ed a f ee a g r ee men t w i t h M r
. St an l ey an d t h at M r
. St an l ey pr oce ede d t o do w o rk o n b e h a lf o f the a p p e llan ts b e fo re the C o u rt, the C o u rt find s tha t the re w a s a n a tto rn e y-clie n t re la tio n sh ip tha t i s e ligib le fo r re im b u rs e m e n t. 7 the Court will not dis miss an EAJ A application. M a r ti n s v
. Principi , 1 9 Vet.App. 20, 23 ( 2005) (r e fu sin g to dis mis s an EA JA a pp lic a tio n f

or fa ilure to c omp ly

wi th C ourt

ru le s) ; see also Carpenter , 1 5 Vet.App. at 75 (" [P ]rotecting the interests of the ve tera n is paramount." ). In J

on es v . W

est , 13 Vet.App. 543 (2000), afte r the appellant' s attorney died, an attorney

from the same firm filed the EAJA application. T hat latter attorney had never filed a notice of appe ara nce, a nd beca use he w as not admitted to the C ourt' s bar, was not "a prac titioner" be fore this Court under Rule 46(d). Id . at 54 4- 45 . T he Court

dis mis se d th e EA JA a

pp lic a tio n, but to ok pa ins to n ote that th e ve te ra n c ou ld not be har

med by its decision beca

use the c ase ha d been taken on a pr o bono basis, and ther efor e, the veter an would not owe money to an attorne y for subseque ntly

obtained past-due benef

its. Id . at 545. The Court did not deter mine whether it would dismiss in a si milar case "where the appe llant mi ght b e fi nan cia ll y

di sad van tagedby

su ch d is mi ss al. " Id. This case , unlike Jones , was taken on a contingenc y fee rathe r t han a pr o bono basis, and the Court ' s d ism iss a l of the EA JA a pp lic a tio n c ou ld have fi na nc ia l c on se qu e nc e s to the a pp e lla nt. See Carpenter , 15 Vet.App. at 75. Under the appellant' s fee ag ree ment, he is liable to Mr. Stanley for 25 perc ent of past-due benefits awa rded. Howeve r, t he amount owed to Mr. Stanley under that fee 4 ag ree ment would be offset, dollar-f or-dollar , by an EAJ A awa rd. Se e id . at 76. Thus, if the Court

wer e to dismiss t he EAJA application and th e appellant was late r to obtain an a war d of past-due benef its, he would not be able to of fset any of the 25 perc ent called for in the fee ag ree ment. Ba sed up on the pr os pe c t of

fi na nc ia l ha rm to t he a pp e lla nt, the Cou

rt wi ll su spen d Ru le 46 , a nd wi ll8

consider t h e E AJ A appli cation timely and prope rly

filed as of

May 15, 2007. Se e Ma rti ns and Carpenter , b oth

su pra . Given this disposit ion, the Court will allow t he S ecr etar y 30 day s from the date of this decision to address the me rits of the EAJA application.

C. Homer L . Mooney , 06-0411(E) On S eptember 14, 2007, the C ourt vacated and remande d that part of a Boa rd dec ision that de nie d M r. Mo on e y ' s c la im f or e nti tle me nt t o aninc re a se d d isa bil ity ratin g fo r d e g e ne rativ e dis c d i s e a s e of the lum

b ar s p i n e
. O nN o v e mb e r

2 , 2 0 0 7 , th e C o urtr e c e i v e d M r
. M o o n e y ' s E A JA application, pre pare d and submitte d b y Mr. Stanley , seekingattorney fee s in the amount of $1,700.00 and costs in the amount of $50.00 for work perf ormed between F ebrua

ry 2006 and F ebrua

ry 2007. On Novembe r 9, 2007, proc eeding s in the case wer e stay ed by order of the Clerk a s a re sult of Mr . St anle y ' s su sp e ns ion , a nd Mr . M oo ne y

wa s in fo rm e d th a t he wa s e nti tle d to ob ta in n e w c ouns e l. On Novembe r 21, 2007, the C ourt g rante d Mr. M ooney ' s motion to lift the stay and proc eed pr o se, but Mr. Mooney has not filed an EAJA application on his own behalf. The Court has y et t o file the EA JA app li c a t i o n s u

b m i t t e d b y M r
. S t an l e y , an d th e S e c r e t ar y h a s thu s f

i l e d n o r e s p o n se in opposition t here to. As in the ca se of Mr. M olden, t his EAJA application was prematur ely submitt ed; howeve r, unlike Mr. M o ld e n ' s a

p p li cation, Mr. Moone y ' s application wa s submitt ed af ter Mr. Stanley

had bee n
s u s p e n d e d

. F o r

th e r e a s o n s g i v e n in Par t I .B a b o v e , th e C o urtw i l l d e e m" f i l e d " th e E A JA application in Mr

. Mooney ' s case as of the first day of the EAJA application per iod (here , Dec ember 12 , 2 00 7) , a

nd wi ll e xer c ise our d isc re tio n und e r Rule 2 of the Court ' s Rule s to su sp e nd Rul e 46 so that th e EA JA a

pp lic a tio n ma

y be fi le d d e sp ite Mr . S tanle y ' s in e lig ibi lity to p ra c tic e be fo re the Court

. This case , howeve r, pre sents an additional proble m. Although Mr. Stanley used the appropr iate case caption, he filed for EAJA fees on his own beha lf. See Mo on e y EA JA Ap p. a t 1 (" Com e s J ame s W. Stanle y , J r. , an d s ub mit s th is a pp lic a tio n f

or a pp ro va l of

a tto rn e y ' s f

e e s. " ). I t is

w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d , h o w e v e r , th a t " an E A JA c l a i m b e l o n g s t o th e a p p e l l an t , [a

n d ] c o n tr o l o f

anE A JA li ti gati on may no t be ceded to an att orn ey ." Similes , 1 1 Ve t

. Ap p
. at1 1 8 (c i t i n g Sh aw, su pra ); see also Carpenter , 15 Vet.App. at 75 (" EAJA awards be long to the claimant, not his or her attorney .")

. Mr. Stanley ' s application f or EAJA fees on his own be half, ther efor e, wa s inappropriate. Ag ain, howeve r, t he C ourt will permit amendment of the defe ctive application. See Sc arborough , 5 41 U. S.9

at 418-19. I f he so c hooses, Mr. Mooney may , wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f t he date of this opinion, either throug h newly

obtained counse l or on his own beh al f, amend the EAJA application to refle ct that he, and not Mr. S tanley , is the party seeking an award. I f he does not do so, the C ourt will deny the application as imper

missibl y submitt ed by

Mr. Stanley

on his own behalf.

II. CO NC LU SION Upon consider ation of t he foreg oing, Mr . Molden' s EAJ A application is deemed F I L ED on May 15, 2007, and the Secre tary is g iven leave to f ile a response to the merits of t h e a p p l ication within 30 day s from the date of this decision. Mr. Mooney ' s EAJ A application is deemed F I L ED on Dec ember

12, 2007. Mr. Warre n and Mr. Mooney are g iven l eave to file, within 30 day s from the date of

this decision, a

mendments to the ir applications, consistent with this opi nion. I n addition, the pane l is DI SSOL VED, a nd eac h case is returne d for revie w befor e a sing le judg e for adjudication of the mer its of eac h appellant' s application.