UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR VE TER AN S CL AI M S

N O . 98-1590

RA N D A LL C. S C AR B OR OUGH , 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

.

Be fore KRAMER, HOL DAWAY, and GREEN E, J ud ge s.

O R D E R

Be fore the Court is the appellant' s application, throug h counsel, for attorney fee s and expenses in the am o u n t o f $19,333.75, pursuant to the Equal Acc ess to J ustice Ac t (EAJA), 28 U

. S. C. § 2 4 1 2 ( d )

. T h e Se c r e ta r y h a s f il e d a mo ti o n to d is mi s s f o r la c k o f ju

r is diction, and the

a pp e lla nt h a s f ile d a re sp on se to the Se c re tary ' s motio n. F or the re a so n tha t fol low s, the Court wi ll dismiss the appe llant's a

pplication.

I n t h e u nderlying litig ation, the appe llant appea led a July 1998 decision of the B oard of Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa

rd), whic h deter

mine d
, inter alia, tha t a Marc h 1976 reg ional office (RO) de c isi on , w hic h h a d de nie d e nti tle me nt to se rv ic e c on ne c tio n fo r c hr on ic re na l f a ilure on the ba sis that the condition pree x isted service , contained no clea r and unmistakable error ( CUE). I n a Jul y 9, 1999, order , this Court vacated the decision and r emande d the matter on the ba sis that both the 1976 RO decision and the Boa

rd decision failed to a ddress the e ffe ct of the la w exist ing at the time of the RO decision re g arding the pre sumption of sound condition.

The a p p e ll a n t, th r o u g h h is c o u n s e l, s u b mi tt e d a p r e matu

r e E A JA a

p p li c a ti o n ( A p p

. ) on Au g us t 19 , 1 99 9, wh ic h w a s fi led on O c tob e r 4 , 1 99 9, a ft e r e ntr y of mand a te in t

his c a se . I n h is application, the appellant stated that: (1) he was the preva iling party pursuant to the J uly 1999

rema nd order , (2) his net wor

th did not ex cee d the $2,000,000.00 l imit for filing under the EAJA; (3) his attorne y

had re prese nted him in the matter since Aug ust 199 8 ; an d (4 ) t h e attorne y had incurre d fee s and ex penses during his repr esenta tion of t he appellant, which were enumerated in an attachme nt to the application. App. at 1- 2, Attachment. On D ece mber 3, 1999, the Secr etar y filed

a mo t i o n t o d i s m i s s fo r l ac k o f j u ri s d i ct i o n o n t h e ba s i s t h at t h e ap p el l an tfa i l ed t o al l ege t h at VA 's position l ac k ed s u b s tantial justification. I n response , on Dec ember 9, 1999, 112 day s after submissi on of his application and 66 da y s after the fili n g o f t he application, the appellant filed a n amendment to his EAJA application, in which he a lleg ed that VA 's p osition l acke d substantial justification.2

Th e Court

ha s juri sdictio n to a wa

rd re a so na ble a tto rn e y

fe e s and e xpe ns e s p ur su a nt t o 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (2)( F)
, as amende d by section 506 of the F eder al Courts Administration Act of 1 9 9 2
, P u b

. L

. N o

. 1 0 2

- 5 7 2
, § 5 0 6
, 1 0 6 S t a t

. 4 5 0 6
, 4 5 1 3 ( 1 9 9 2 )

. I n o r d e r t o b e e l i g i b l e f

o r a n E A JA

a wa rd , th e EA JA a

pp lic a tio n must be fi le d with in the 30 -d a y EA JA a pp lic a tio n pe ri od se t f

or th i n 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)( B) . I n addition, in order to satisfy jurisdictional require ments, the application must contain a showing that the a pplicant is a pre vailing pa rty , an asse rtion that the applicant is a pa

rty elig ible for an awa

rd under the EAJA, and an alleg ation that the position of the Secre tary was not substantially justified. See 28 U. S.C. § 2 41 2( d) (1 )( A) a nd (B ); Che sse r v . W e st , 11 Ve t.A pp . 4 97 , 4 99 (1 99 8) ; Ba

za lo v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 304, 308 (1996) ( en banc ), rev'd on other
gr ou nd s su b n om . B az alo v . W est, 150 F.3 d 13 80
, 13 84 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 8) . A lth ou g h n ot a jurisdictional require ment, to be a pa rty elig ible for an EAJA awa rd, an individual must show that his or her ne t worth did not ex cee d $2,000,000.00 at the time the civil ac tion was filed. See 28 U. S.C. § 2 41 2( d) (2 )( B ); Ba za lo , 150 F.3d at 1383-84.

Con trary to the contention of the a

ppellant, the United States Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit (Fe dera l Circuit) has not held that "the require ment to f ile [an EA J A application] w ithin 30 d ay s [ i s ] cl ea rl y

j u ri s d i ct i o n al
, b u tt h e o t h er re qu i re m en t s o f t h e s t at u t e [ ar e] n o t

. " A p p el l an t 's Response (Resp.) at 1. As indicated a bove, this Court specifica lly held in Bazalo v. Brown that, inter al i a, t h e r eq u i re m en tt h at an ap p l i ca n tm u s tal l ege , wi t h i n t h e r eq u i s i t e 3 0 -d ay t i m e p er i o d
, t h at VA 's actions lac ked substantial justification is j u risdictional, and that an a pplicant may

not amend a jurisdictionall y d efe ctive application outsi de of tha t 30-day filing pe riod. See 28 U. S.C. § 2 41 2( d) (1 )( B ); Ba

za lo , 9 Vet.App. at 308-09. On appe al, the F eder al Circuit left intact the holding of the Cou rt on the su

bs tanti a l justi fi c a tio n que sti on , ad dr e ssi ng so le ly the qu e sti on wh e the r a tim e ly filed EAJA application may be supplemented afte r the expiration of the 30-da y period for

filing se t fo rt h in se c tio n 24 12 (d )( 1) (B ) to s ho w e lig ibi lity by e sta bli sh ingtha

t th e a pp lic a nt m e t th e ne t w or

th require ment of sec tion 2412(d)(2)( B)

. Se e Ba za lo v . W

est , 1 5 0 F. 3d at 1384 (holding , wher e app li cat io n al legedpo si ti on of V A l acked su bs tan ti al j us ti fi cat io n and st ate d that app li cant was "a preva iling par

ty and entitled to re ceive an aw ard," that application could be suppl emented outside 30-day filing pe riod to show that net worth re quirement met if Gove rnment not prejudice d there by ). I ndeed, the Fe dera l Circuit impl icitly upheld this Court's ruling t h at an a lleg ation of substantial justification within the requisite 30-day period is jurisdictional when it state d that Mr. B azalo, who had spec ifically

alleg ed a la ck of substantial justification in his orig inal, timely , fee application, " met the jurisdictional require ments" of t h e E AJ A s t atute. Id. ; see also Commissioner, INS v. J ean , 496 U.S. 154, 160 (1990) (a "f ee a pplication mus t co n t ai n an alleg ation ' that the position of the United States was not substantially justified'" ). Acc ording ly
, the application filed by the appe llant within the 30-day

filing pe riod, which c ontained no mention whatsoe ver r eg arding substant ial justification, is jurisdi ctionally defic ient. The amendment alleg ing a l ack of substantial justification, filed we ll outsi de of the requisite 30-da y period, c annot correc t such a jurisdictional def icit, see Ba za lo v . B ro wn , 9 Ve t

. Ap p

. at 3 0 8 -0 9
, an d t h e C o u rt t h er ef o re l ac k s j u ri s d i ct i o n o v er t h e ap p el l an t 's EAJA application.

On c on sid e ratio n o f t

he a bo ve , it is3

ORDERED that the appe llant's application for an awa rd of attorney

fee s and expenses under the EAJA is DI SMI SSED for lack of jurisdiction.

DA TE D: June 14 , 2 00 0 PER CU RI AM

.