UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS 

NO. 03-1008(E)

CHARLES F. EVINGTON, APPELLANT,

V.

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI,

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

On Appellant's Application for Attorney Fees and Expenses

(Decided September 13, 2004 )

Barton F. Stichman, Nancy L. Foti, and James W. Stewart (nonattorney practitioner), all of

Washington, D.C., were on the pleadings for the appellant.

Tim S. McClain, General Counsel; R. Randall Campbell, Assistant General Counsel; Carolyn

F. Washington, Deputy Assistant General Counsel; and Richard Mayerick, all of Washington, D.C.,

were on the pleading for the appellee.

Before IVERS, STEINBERG, and GREENE, Judges.

STEINBERG, Judge: Before the Court is the appellant's January 9, 2004, application, filed

through counsel, for attorney fees and expenses pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act,

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (EAJA). The Secretary filed a response, and the appellant filed a reply thereto.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the appellant's application.

I. Background

The appellant, through attorneys Barton F. Stichman and Nancy L. Foti, and nonattorneypractitioner James W. Stewart, previously sought review of a March 7, 2003, Board of Veterans'

Appeals (BVA) decision that denied his claim for an increased rating for Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) service-connected residuals of a shell-fragment wound of the left flank with a

compound comminuted fracture of the ilium, rated as 20% disabling. On December 4, 2003, the
2

parties filed a joint motion to terminate based on a stipulated agreement. See U.S. VET. APP. R. 42.

Judgment was issued and the mandate was entered on December 11, 2003. By the terms of the

stipulated agreement, the appellant was granted an increased rating to 50%, effective from

July 1, 1971, under 38 C.F.R. § 4.73, Diagnostic Code 5317 (2002).

In January 2004, the appellant filed an EAJA application seeking $4,124.76 in attorney fees

and expenses. Application (Appl.) at 1. He calculates the requested amount based on (1) 30.5 hours,

at a rate of $126.73 per hour, spent by the senior litigation paralegal, Mr. Stewart, who is employed

by the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) and is admitted to practice before this

Court as a nonattorney practitioner; (2) 1 hour spent by attorney Foti, a member of the Court's bar,

at a rate of $148.45 per hour; (3) .5 hour spent by attorney Stichman, a member of the Court's bar,

at a rate of $148.45 per hour; and (4) expenses in the amount of $36.81. Appl. at 5-6. Mr. Stewart's

requested hourly rate was calculated "by adding the increase in the Consumer Price Index for All

Urban Consumers [(CPI-ALL)] for the Washington, D.C., area since June 2001 to [the] $120 per

hour" rate that this Court has previously approved for Mr. Stewart in Abbey v. Principi, 17 Vet.App.

282 (2003), and Pentecost v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 257 (2003). Appl. Exhibit (Exh.) D. Attached

to the EAJA application are, inter alia, affidavits from representatives of three Washington, D.C.,

law firms stating that the prevailing market rate for experienced and specialized paralegals ranges

from $130 to $250 per hour. Appl. Exhs. F, G, H.

The Secretary "concedes that [the] appellant is a 'prevailing party[]' and that the Secretary's

position was not 'substantially justified.'" Response (Resp.) at 1. The Secretary asserts that Mr.

Stewart should be awarded, instead of the $126.73-per-hour fee requested, a $120-per-hour fee based

on the Court's opinions in Abbey and Pentecost, both supra; the Secretary argues that a cost-of-living

adjustment (COLA) is not available for Mr. Stewart because the opinion of the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Levernier Construction, Inc. v. United States,

947 F.2d 497 (Fed. Cir. 1991), "rejected a COLA . . . [for] the statutory rate paid to paralegals."

Resp. at 2. 

In reply, the appellant argues that the Federal Circuit did not hold that a paralegal could never

be compensated under the EAJA at a rate exceeding the statutory maximum, but "actually held that

a [COLA] cannot be added to the prevailing market rate for either attorneys or paralegals." Reply
3

at 8 (emphasis added). Alternatively, he contends that, even if the Secretary were correct in his

interpretation of Levernier, this Court is not precluded from permitting a COLA to be applied to the

statutory maximum for a nonattorney practitioner because, in accordance with section 403 of the

Veterans Benefits Act of 2002 (VBA), Pub. L. No. 107-330, § 403, 116 Stat. 2819, 2833, the Court

is authorized "to award feesfor non[]attorney practitioners 'in an amount determined appropriate by'

th[e] Court." Reply at 8-9.

II. Analysis

A. Eligibility for Award

This Court has jurisdiction to award reasonable attorney fees and expenses pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(F). Here, the appellant's January 2004 EAJA application was filed within

the 30-day EAJA application period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B) and satisfies the EAJA

"application-content specifications", Scarborough v. Principi, ___ U.S. __, __, No. 02-1657, slip.

op. at 11, 2004 WL 938027, at *9 (May 3, 2004), because the application contained the following:

(1) A showing that, by virtue of the Court's remand, he is the prevailing party within the meaning

of the EAJA; (2) a showing that he is a party eligible for an award under the EAJA because his net

worth does not exceed $2,000,000; (3) an allegation that the position of the Secretary was not

substantially justified; and (4) an itemized fee statement. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), (1)(B), (2)(B);

Cullens v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 234, 237 (2001) (en banc) (listing four EAJA-application content

requirements).

As to prevailing-party status, this Court stated in Rollins v. Principi: 

In order to receive an EAJA award, an EAJA applicant must

be a prevailing party. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) ("court shall

award to a prevailing party . . . fees and other expenses"); Briddell [v.

Principi, 16 Vet.App. 267, 271 (2002)]: Sumner [v. Principi,

15 Vet.App. 256, 260-61 (2001) (en banc), aff'd sub nom. Vaughn v.

Principi, 336 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003)]: Cullens, [supra]. The

appellant has the burden of demonstrating prevailing-party status

under the EAJA. See Sumner, Briddell, and Cullens, all supra.

Prevailing-party status arises in either of two ways. The first is

through a direction of the Court, evident within the terms of the

particular Court decision upon which the appellant is basing the

EAJA application, for VA to award VA benefits to the appellant.
4

Sumner, 15 Vet.App. at 264-65. The second is through the grant of

a merits-stage Court remand that was predicated upon administrative

error. Ibid. In order for a remand to have been predicated upon

administrative error, the remand must either (1) have been directed in

a Court opinion, decision, or order that contained a Court recognition

of administrative error or (2) have been granted on the basis of a

concession of error by the Secretary. McCormick [v. Principi,

16 Vet.App. 407, 411 (2002)]; Briddell, 16 Vet.App. at 271-72. The

Court will not "investigate at the EAJA prevailing-party stage the

validity, type, or nature of the administrative error." McCormick,

[supra]. 

Rollins, 17 Vet.App. 294, 298 (2003).

In the instant case, the Secretary concedes that the appellant is a prevailing party;

furthermore, because the Court's December 11, 2003, termination order was predicated on the parties'

December 2003 joint motion to terminate the appeal in accordance with the terms of the settlement

agreement, including the Secretary's consent to assign the appellant an increased rating of 50% for

his service-connected residuals of a shell-fragment wound, the Court holds that the appellant is a

prevailing party for EAJA purposes by virtue of the "award [of] VA benefits to the appellant",

Rollins, supra. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va.

Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604 (2001) (noting that prior caselaw "establish[es]

that enforceable judgments on the merits and [settlement agreements enforced through]

court-ordered consent decrees create the 'material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties'

necessary to permit an award of attorney's fees" (quoting Tex. State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep.

Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792-93 (1989))); Sumner and McCormick, both supra; Cullens, supra

(concluding that Secretary did not contest that appellant was a prevailing party and "agree[ing] that

pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the appellant is a prevailing party"). 

Moreover, the Secretary concedes that his position was not substantially justified. Resp. at

1; see McCormick, 16 Vet.App. at 412 (determining that, "[u]nder the EAJA, the Secretary has

affirmative defenses to a fee award, one of which is to demonstrate that his position at both the

administrative (BVA) and litigation (Court) stages was 'substantially justified'"); Cullens, supra

(noting that "[o]nce an appellant has alleged a lack of substantial justification, the burden shifts to

the Secretary to prove that VA was substantially justified in its administrative and litigation
5

positions"). Because substantial justification is an affirmative defense to be raised by the Secretary,

the Court need not address whether the Secretary's position was "substantially justified" when the

Secretary does not assert such a defense. See Cook v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 226, 237 (1994) (holding

that Court need not address whether Secretary's position was "substantially justified" when Secretary

did not assert such a defense but expressly conceded that issue), aff'd, 68 F.3d 447 (Fed. Cir. 1995);

see also Abbey, 17 Vet.App. at 288 (applying Cook, supra); Calma v. West, 12 Vet.App. 66, 68-69

(1998); Shaw v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 498, 501 (1997). Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes

that the appellant is entitled to an award of EAJA fees.

B. Reasonableness of Fee Request

The only remaining question in this appeal is whether $126.73 is an appropriate hourly rate

for Mr. Stewart's work as a nonattorney practitioner in this matter. Generally, "[t]he Court has wide

discretion in the award of attorney fees under the EAJA." Chesser v. West, 11 Vet.App. 497, 501

(1998). For work performed by an attorney, fees "shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour

unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the

limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee."

28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii). In Sandoval v. Brown, the Court considered whether EAJA fees

could be awarded for work done by an attorney-supervised law student. Sandoval, 9 Vet.App. 177

(1996). In deciding in the affirmative, the Court held that the appropriate hourly rate for paralegals,

law clerks, and law students was the prevailing market rate for such services, or the then-statutory

cap of $75 per hour as established by 38 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A), plus COLA, whichever was lower.

Id. at 181 (citing Elcyzyn v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 170, 181 (1994)). Several years later, the Court also

held that the work of attorney-supervised nonattorneypractitioners is "compensable under the EAJA

at an appropriate rate". McCracken v. Principi, 14 Vet.App. 269, 274 (2001) (citing Sandoval,

9 Vet.App. at 181). The Court stated in McCracken that "the appropriate hourly rate for such fees

is either the prevailing market rate for such services or the rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. §

2412(d)(2)(A), adjusted by the applicable [COLA], 'whichever is lower'." McCracken, at 272

(quoting Sandoval, supra); cf. Levernier, supra. 
6

VBA § 403 provides:

The authority of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims to award reasonable fees and expenses of attorneys under

section 2412(d) of title 28, United States Code, shall include authority

to award fees and expenses, in an amount determined appropriate

by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, of

individuals admitted to practice before the Court as non[]attorney

practitioners under subsection (b) or (c) of Rule 46 of the Rules of

Practice and Procedure of the United States Court of Appeals for

Veterans Claims.

VBA § 403 (emphasis added). This provision empowers the Court to award fees "in an amount

determined appropriate" to nonattorney practitioners admitted to practice before this Court under

Rule 46(b) and (c). See Abbey, 17 Vet.App. at 290; Pentecost, 17 Vet.App. at 259; U.S. VET. APP.

R. 46(b), (c). In section 403, Congress recognized that the nonattorney practitioners who practice

before this Court are "unique and . . . more akin to attorneys than they are to paralegals." Pentecost,

17 Vet.App. at 260; see Abbey, 17 Vet.App. at 292 (concluding that "section 403 itself constitutes

a recognition of the special role of nonattorney practitioners who practice before the Court"). The

Committees on Veterans' Affairs stated in their Explanatory Statement regarding the final version

of VBA § 403:

TheCommittees expect that in determining the amount of reasonable

fees payable to non[]attorney practitioners, the Court will apply the

usual rules applicable to fees for the work of other non[]attorneys

such as paralegals and law students based upon the prevailing market

rates for the kind and quality of the services furnished. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2412(d)(2)(A). See[] Sandoval[,] 9 Vet.App. [at] 181[.]

148 CONG. REC. S11338 (daily ed. Feb. 18, 2002); 148 CONG. REC. H9006-07 (daily ed.

Feb. 14, 2002) [hereinafter Explanatory Statement]. 

Applying section 403 in Abbey and Pentecost, the Court held that $120 per hour was a

reasonable and appropriate rate for Mr. Stewart's work in those matters. Abbey, 17 Vet.App. at 292

(holding $120"'reasonable' and 'appropriate' based on [Mr. Stewart's] reputation, skill, and special

expertise and qualifications as an experienced advocate in veterans law"); Pentecost, 17 Vet.App.

at 260-61 (stating that "[w]e cannot, in the exercise of common sense, order that non[]attorney

practitioners be compensated as attorneys, but neither is their compensation to be limited by the
7

prevailing market rate for paralegals"). The Court did not state in either opinion whether the $120

rate was considered the prevailing market rate or a cap comparable to the $125-per-hour (plus

COLA) attorney-fee rate established by the EAJA. Nor was the issue before the Court as to whether

the hourly rate of a nonattorney practitioner could be augmented by a COLA. See Pentecost,

17 Vet.App. at 261 (holding that "[g]iven his extensive experience in veterans law, the request that

the services of James Stewart, the non[]attorney practitioner in this case, be valued at $120 per hour

(without COL[A]) is reasonable"); see also Abbey, 17 Vet.App. at 292. 

The Secretary asserts that Levernier, supra, is controlling of the fee-rate outcome here and

that the Court thus should deny the use of a COLA in connection with the computation of a

reasonable and appropriate fee for Mr. Stewart's nonattorney-practitioner work. Resp. at 2. In

Levernier, the Federal Circuit held that "although the EAJA allows for the recovery of paralegal fees

. . . neither the cap on [EAJA] fees nor the fees themselves may be augmented by a COLA."

Levernier, 947 F.2d at 503. Levernier, however, did not consider EAJA fees for those individuals

in the unique role of nonattorney practitioners, such as Mr. Stewart, and was decided prior to the

enactment of VBA § 403. Moreover, in Levernier the prevailing market rate for the paralegal work

in question was lower than the then $75-per-hour EAJA cap on attorney fees; hence, the paralegal

rate awarded there was required to be the prevailing market rate, as to which it is indisputable that

a COLA does not attach. See Levernier, 947 F.2d 503-04 (citing Hirschey v. FERC, 777 F.2d 1, 5

(D.C. Cir. 1985)). Finally, nothing in Levernier would limit this Court's authority to award a fee

premised on a prevailing market rate for a nonattorney practitioner's work. Therefore, Levernier is

not dispositive of the issue in the present case. 

As previously noted, the Court has wide discretion in awarding fees under the EAJA, see

Chesser, supra, and, by virtue of VBA § 403, has wide discretion in awarding EAJA fees for the

work of nonattorney practitioners, see Abbey, 17 Vet.App. at 290-91 (stating that VBA § 403

"provides this Court with wide discretion in determining what fee is 'appropriate' for the work of a

particular non[]attorney practitioner"); Pentecost, 17 Vet.App. at 261 (VBA § 403 "grants the Court

broad discretion in determining what would constitute a reasonable fee for a particular non[]attorney

practitioner"). In determining a reasonable and appropriate fee for Mr. Stewart in this case, the Court

must balance precedent and law instructing that nonattorney practitioners in the unique veterans
8

benefits system are more akin to attorneys than they are to paralegals, see VBA § 403; Abbey,

17 Vet.App. at 292; Pentecost, 17 Vet.App. at 260, with the recognition that generally nonattorney

practitioners are not the equivalent of attorneys and compensating them in a manner comparable to

paralegals is not, per se, unreasonable, see Abbey and Pentecost, both supra; Explanatory Statement,

supra. In light of the Court's broad discretion, and because the nonattorney-practitioner work was

performed from April 2003 to December 2003 in the instant case, as compared to the January 2001-

to-January 2002 and the September 2000-to-September 2002 work periods in Abbey and Pentecost,

respectively, and in light of the appellant's uncontested evidence that the prevailing market rate for

experienced paralegals in Washington, D.C., is anywhere from $130 to $250 per hour and that Mr.

Stewart is highly experienced in the practice of veterans benefits law, the Court holds that the fee

rate of $126.73 per hour requested by the appellant is reasonable and appropriate as a prevailing

market rate for Mr. Stewart's nonattorney-practitioner work during the time period involved in this

case. See Abbey, Pentecost, Sandoval, and Elcyzyn, all supra. We are not called upon by the rate

requested for Mr. Stewart's work in this case to determine whether a nonattorney practitioner can be

compensated at the $125-hourly-cap-plus-COLA EAJA statutory rate if that practitioner's prevailing

market rate is greater than that statutory rate because, in this case, the $126.73-per-hour prevailing

market rate for Mr. Stewart's work is clearly less than the $125-hourly-cap-plus-COLA EAJA

statutory rate. See VBA § 403; see also McCracken, supra; cf. Sandoval and Elcyzyn, both supra.

Nor do we in this case decide any more than that under VBA § 403 the rate of $126.73 per hour is

a reasonable and appropriate prevailing market rate under the EAJA for Mr. Stewart's work during

the pertinent time period involved in this case. 

III. Conclusion

Upon consideration of the foregoing and the parties' pleadings, the Court will grant the

appellant's January 9, 2004, EAJA application in full in the amount of $4,124.76.

APPLICATION GRANTED.