UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
No. 05-3159(E )
R OB E R T J. M C D O N A LD , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. R. J A M ES N I C HOL S ON , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.
On A ppel l ant ' s A ppl i cat i on f or A tt or ney Fees and E xpenses
(Argued Apr il 11, 2007 Dec ided May 24, 2007 )

Ro na ld L . S

mi th , of Washington, D.C., for the appe llant. Zac ha ry

M. Sto lz , of Washington, D. C., a lso e nte re d a

n a pp e ara nc e fo r t he a pp e lla nt. Richard A. Daley , w ithwh om Paul J. Hutter , A c tin g Ge ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , As sis tant G e ne ra l Co un se l; Gayle E. Strommen , Deputy Assistant Gener al Counsel; and An ge la Cross Green , all of Washington, D.C., we re on the pleading s for the a ppellee.
Be fore KASOL D, MOORMAN, a nd DAVI S, Judges

. DAVI S, Judge : This case is bef ore the Court on the appe llant's O ctober 16, 2006, application filed throug h counsel for rea sonable fee s and expenses under the Equal Acc ess to Justi ce Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). In his response to the a ppell an t 's EAJ A applica

tion, the Secre tary
c ha lle ng e s th e ho ur ly

rate of fe e s p ro ff

e re d b y the a pp e lla nt. At or a l argume nt, the Se c re tary a lso objected to the numbe r of itemized hours for which the appe llant s ee k s reimburse ment. Panel
c on sid e ratio n is re qu ir e d to de te rm ine wh e the r a no n- a tto rn e y

pr a c tit ion e r wh o ha s bee n ce rt if ie d to prac tice bef

ore the Court in accor dance with Rule 46(b) of this Court' s Rules of Practice and Procedur e (Rules) w ithout the require ment of attorney supervision should be entitled to a preva iling marke t rate distinct from that of a non- attorney prac titioner who has bee n cer tified to prac tice bef

oreG ene r al l y , an d i n per t i nen t par t , Rul e 46(b) al l ows non- at t orn ey pra ct i t i oner s t o app ear bef ore t hi s Co ur t i f

t hey 1 are (1) di rect l y s up ervi sed b y an at t o rney ; or (2) em p l o y ed by a vet erans' s ervi ce o rgani zat i o n who se chi ef execut i ve o ff ic e r c e rtifi e s a s to the e m p lo ye e ' s c o m p e te n c e in v e te ra n s' m a tter s. See U

. S. V ET
. A PP
. R

. 46 (b)(1), (2). 2 the Cou rt wi th attor

ne y su pe rv isi on . Th e Court

ho lds that no n- a tto rn e y

pr a c tit ion e rs are no t pe r s e 1 entitled to dif

fer ent rate s of compensation based on the diff ere nce in supe rvisory

require ments. For the re a so ns se t f

or th b e low , th e Court

wi ll g ra nt t he a pp lic a tio n in

pa rt

.
I. BACKG ROUND Ve te ra n Ro be rt J. Mc Do na ld a

pp e a le d f ro m a July 18 , 2 00 5, B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls (B oard) decision deny

ing inc rea sed ratings for

multipl e shell fr ag ment wounds

. W h i l e t he B oard decision wa s on appea l at this Court, the parties filed a joint motion f or rema nd on the basis that the Boa rd fa iled to fulfill its duty

to assist the vetera

n in de veloping his c laims. The Court grante d that joint mot ion on October

5, 2006. On Octobe r 16, 2006, the appe llant submit ted an EA J A application requestingfee s in the amount of $3,735.00 and ex penses in the amount of $63.00 for the work of his repre sentative, nonattorney prac ti t i o n er L andon E. Overby of the Disable d Americ an Ve tera ns. Specifica lly , the appellant r equeste d reimburse ment for 24.9 hour s at "the s tatutory rate of $125.00 per hour," subject to cost of l iving adjustments (COLA), and then "voluntarily reduc ed" to the rate of $150.00 per hour. SeeAp pe lla

nt' s App lic a tio n f

or an A wa rd of Re a so na

ble F e e s and Expe ns e s ( EA JA Ap p. ), Af fi davit of L andon E. Ove rby , at 4-5. Thus, he is r equesting that the fee be ca lculated ba sed on the statutory rate denoted f

or attorne y s. On Novembe r 15, 2006, the Sec reta ry filed a r esponse to the a

ppellant' s EAJ A application contendingthat the fe es soug ht by the appellant are excessive for w ork per formed by a non-attorney prac titioner. On Novembe r 29, 2006, the a ppellant filed a

reply to the Secre tary ' s response in whic h th e a p p e l l an ts o u g h tt o j u s t i fy r e i mb ur s e m e n ta tth e h o ur l y r a t e s e tf

o rthi nth e i n i t i a l E A JA application. SeeAppellant' s Reply to Appellee' s Response to the EAJA App. (Reply ) at 1-12. T he appellant c ontended that Mr. O verby is entitled to a highe r rate t han the r ate f or a supe rvised nona tto rn e y pr a c tit ion e r a dmi tte d to pr a c tic e un der this C ourt ' s Ru le s b e c a us e " [t]he re is n o r a tio na l, objective ba sis upon which to differ entiate be tween the value of service s provided by Mr. Over byM r. S te w a rt is a se n io r p a ra le g a l ce rtifi e d to p ra c tice b e fo re the C o u rt u n d e r t h e su p e rv isio n o f an a tto rn e y in 2 a c c o rd a n c e w ith R u le 4 6 (b )( 1 ) o f this C o u rt' s R u le s. See Abbey v
. Pr i nci pi , 17 V et

. App. 282, 284 ( 2003)

. M r . O v er by is c e rtifi e d to p ra c tice in a c c o rd a n c e w ith R u le 4 6 (b )( 2 ) w itho u t atto rn e y su p e rv isio n . See R e p ly at 2 -3

. 3 and the va lue of those pr ovided by an attorne y

on the basis o f at torney /non-attorney

status for purposes of the EAJA." Reply at 2-3. Spec ifically , he contends that, be cause Mr. Over by does not requir e a tt o r

n e y s u p e r v is io n , is r e s p o n s ib le f o r h is o w nw o r

k , an d p o s s e s s e s im

p r e ssive qualifications a

nd experience , the Court's prec edent reg arding fee s for non-attor n ey p ra ctitioner J ames W. Stewart is inapplicable

. SeeRe ply a t 2- 11 ; se e als o A

po da c k is , Evington , and Pe nte c os t , 2

a ll inf ra ; Abbey , su

pra n.2. The a

ppellant also see ks reimburseme nt o f $ 4 0 0

. 00 for 2.5 hour s of work a s s o ciated w ith prepar ation of the Reply at a r ate of

$160.00 per hour

. SeeReply at 12, Attachment 3, Af

fidavit of Ronald L . Smit h, at 2.

II. AN AL YSI S A. El ig ibi lity Th i s Court has jurisdiction to award r easona ble fe es and e x penses to non-attorney prac titioners pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)( B)

. See Veter ans Benef its Act of 2002 (VB A), Pub. L . No. 107-330, § 403, 116 St at

. 2 820, 2833 (2002). EA J A fe es may be aw arde d wher e the
a pp lic 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 in 28 U .S. C. § 2412(d)( 1)(B ) and c ontains (1) a showing that the appellant is a preva iling party ; ( 2) a showingthat the appellant is a

p arty e li g ib le f o r anaw ar d b e c a u s e h is n e t w o rth

d o e s n o t e xc e e d

$ 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0; (3) a n al l ega t i on that the Secr etar y ' s position was not subst antially justified; and (4) a

n itemiz ed statement of the f

ees a nd expenses soug ht. See28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A) , (1 )( B), (2)( B) ; Scarborough v. Principi , 5 41 U. S. 4 01 , 4 07 -0 8 ( 20 04 ); Cull en s v. Go ber , 14 Vet.App. 234, 237 (2001) ( en banc ). The appellant' s EAJA applica tion wa s timely filed and satisfies the EAJA content require ments. See id. The Secre tary makes no argument with respec t to prevailing -par ty status or whether the Secr etar

y ' s position was substantially justified. The Secr etar

y disputes the hourly

fee and number

of itemized hours for whic h the appe llant seeks re imbursement.C al cul at i ng t he ho url y rat e set f o rt h i n hi s i ni t i al ap p l i cat i o n as $ 1 2 5

. 0 0 p er hour s ub ject t o C O LA , t he 3
a p p e llan t d e te rm ine d tha t t h e m a x im u m ra te sta tuto rily av a ilab le to him w a s $ 1 6 3 .3 7 p e r h o u r (w h ic h he a rb itra rily cal cul at ed ba sed o n t he hi ghest C o nsumer P ri ce Index f o r A l l U rban C o nsumers ( C P I- U ) i n t he W ashi ngt o n- B al t i m o re a re a in 2 0 0 6 ) b u t t h e n ine x p lica b ly " v o lun ta rily re d u c e d " tha t am o u n t t o $ 1 5 0 .0 0 p e r h o u r. See R e p ly at 1 1

. 4 B . Re a so na

ble ne ss o f H ourl y

Rate 1. Prevailing Marke t Rate Versus Attorney-FeeStatutory Maximum

"' [T] he EAJA authorizes the awa rd of the lowe r of either the preva iling market rate or [the st atu to ry max im um ] pl us a C OL A or ot her e nh ancem ent .'" Elc y zy n v. Br own , 7 Vet.App. 170, 179 (1 9 9 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Levernie r Const., Inc. v. Un i t ed States , 947 F.2d 497 ( Fe d. Cir. 1991)). F ees f or
a tt o r n e y s ar e s tatuto r il y c a

p p e d a t th e r a te o f $ 1 2 5

. 0 0 p e r h o ur p lus aCOL A. SeeContr a c t w ith Americ a Adva

nceme nt Act of 1996, Pub. L . No. 104-121, § 232, 110 Stat. 841, 863 (1996) ( codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2 4 1 2 (d )( 2 )( A) ). Ther e is no such ca p on the awa

rd of f ees f or non-attorney prac titioners. I n that re gard, the Court has discretion to awa rd fe es " ' in an amount deter mined app rop ri ate .'" Abbey , 1 7 V e t.A pp . at 29 0 ( qu oti ngVB A § 40 3) ; see also Chesser v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 497, 501-02 (1998) (" The Court has wide discretion in the awa rd of attorney

fee s under the EAJA."). The a ppellant asser

ts that Mr. Over

by ' s service s are indisti ng uishable fr om those of an attorney , and, ther efor e, he is e ntitled to the statutory rate for attorney s plus a COL A. Howeve r, our 3

case law and le g islative histo ry make c lear

that non-attorne y

prac titioners are not attorney s and cannot be compensated as such. See Pentec ost v. Principi , 1 7 V e t. Ap p . 2 5 7 , 2 6 0

- 6 1 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ( " We cannot , in th e e xe r c is e o f

c o mm o ns e n s e , o r d e r

th at n o n - a tt o r

n e y p r a c ti ti o n e r s b e c o mp e n s a te d as attorney s.") . I ndeed, the Court has repe atedly drawn a distinction between at t orney s and nonattorney prac titioners, and we w ill continue to do so here

. See id. ; Evington v. Principi , 18 Vet.App. 33 1, 33 6 (20 04 ) (r e a so nin g that no n- a tto rn e y pr a c tio ne rs are mor e akin to atto rn e y s th an p ara le g a ls, but g e ne ra lly , " no natto rn e y pr a c tit ion e rs are no t th e e qu iva le nt o f atto rn e y s" ); see al so Ap odac k

is

v
. Ni c holson , 19 Ve t.A

pp . 9 1, 94 -9 5 ( 20 05 ); Abbey , 17 Vet.App. at 291 (" ' The Committees [on Veter ans' Affa irs] ex pect that in dete r mi ning the amount of re asonable fee s pay able to non[-]attorney prac titioners, the C o u rt wi l l ap p ly the usual rules a

pplicable to fe es for

the work of

other non[-] attorney s such as pa

rale g als and lawstudents.'" (quoting 148 C ONG
. R EC
. S 1 1 , 3 3 8 (daily ed. F eb. 18, 2002); 148 C ONG
. R EC . H9006-07 (da ily ed. Fe b. 14, 2002)))

. Instead, the Court w ill assess the5

rea sonablene ss of fee s based on the pr evailingmarke t rate f or non-a ttorney prac titioners. See id. (n oti ngthat th e Committe e on Ve te ra ns ' Af fa ir s e xpe c te d the wo rk

of no n- a tto rn e y

pr a c tit ion e rs to be dete rmined " based upon the preva iling mar ket rat es fo r t h e k ind and quality of the ser

vices furnished" ). 2. Pr e v ail ing Ma rk e t R atefor

Non -A tto rn e

yPrac tit ion e rs Gi ve n th a t M r . O v e r

b y w i l l n o t b e c o mp e n s a t e d a t th e s am e r a t e a s an a t t o r n e y , it i s incumbent upon the Court to d et er m i n e the prevailingmarke t rate f or his service s. The appe llant submits t hat Mr. Ove rby

is not subject t o the $120.00 per hour plus COL A established in the line of
c a se s invo lvi ngMr . St e wa rt be c a us e Mr . St e wa

rt is s up e rv ise d b y

an atto rn e y

and Mr . O ve rb y

is n ot. SeeReply

at 8. Even thoug h Mr. Over by , unlike Mr. Stewar

t, prac tices before this Court ind e p e n d e n t f

r o m a t t o r n e y o v e r s i g h t , w e f

i n d s u c h a d i s t i n c t i o n i n s u f f i c i e n t t o d i s t i n g u ish thi s Court's pr ece dent as it relates to supervised non- attorney prac titioners. Although the Rule 46(b) sets forth separ ate require ments for supervised and u n s upervised non-attorne y

prac titioners, it is appar ent that, base d on a tradition of re prese ntation established prior to the formation of the veter ans bar , Congr ess intende d t o el i m i nate the attorney supervision require ment for non- attorney prac titioners admitted to p ra ct ice unde r Rule 46(b)( 2) without any implication that such practitioners have g reater e x pertise than the ir Rule 46(b)( 1) counte rpar ts. The le g isl a tiv e his tor

y of the VB A s ug g e sts that Co ng re ss i nte nd e d to a llo w c e rt a in pr act it ion e rs to collect EA J A fe es af

ter re prese nting ve tera

ns without attorney

supervisi on based on a

tradition of veter ans ser

vice or g anization (VSO) non-attorney repr esenta t i v es advoc ating on the beha lf of veter ans. This Court has noted that the " cong ressional intent under lying [section 403 of the VB A] was to eliminate the attorney -si g n-off require ment for EA J A applications to be submit ted by an ot herw is e un superv is ed V S O-em pl oy ed n on [ -] att orn ey prac ti ti on er." Abbey , 1 7 Vet.App. at 293. In its discussion of the leg islative history of the VB A, the Court in Pe nte c os t re fe rr e d to a Se nate committee re port, which provide d: B a se d u po n a lon g -s tand ing lim itatio n on paying a tto rn e y fe e s in ve te ra ns ' be ne fi ts case s, there ha d not been an active ve tera ns' bar until the ena ctment of the V eter ans J udicial Review A ct, Public L aw 100-527. As a result, non-attorne y volunteers a nd employ ees of

[VS Os] and other

non-prof it org anizations beg an to re prese nt vetera n claimants bef

ore V A without direct supervision by an attorney

. VA policy has neve r6

r e qu i r e d th a tth e s e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s b e a t t o r n e ys , o n l y th a tt h e y b e c r e d e n t i a l e d b y a VA-r ecognized VSO. Pe nte c os t , 17 Vet.App. at 2 5 9 (c i t i ng S. Rep. No. 107-234, at 19 (2001) ). F urther, in Abbey , th is Court noted that the stated purpose of the VB A was that "unsupe rvised non[-]attorney s [would] be g ive n a c c e ss t o f

e e c omp e ns a tio n und e r t

he EA JA [, w hic h w ou ld a llo w] ve te ra ns or g anizatio ns to repr esen t ev en m ore v ete rans ." Abbey , 17 Vet.App. at 293 (citing 148 Cong. Rec. S2416 (daily ed. Apr. 9, 2002) ( statement of Senator Rockef eller) ). B ased on the fore g oing, the Court holds that the
me re fa c t th a t Mr . Ove rb y a c ts witho ut attor ne y su pe rv isi on is n ot a

ba sis fo r e nti tle me nt t o a

n h ourl y preva iling mar

ket rate hig her tha

n a super vised non-attorne y

prac titioner for purpose s of EAJA. Consequently , althoug h the appellant urg es us to de termine that, beca use his repre sentative is uns up e rv ise d, he is e nti tle d to an ho ur ly rate of $1 25 .0 0 plu s a CO L A, a s op po se d to the ho ur ly rate of $120.00 plus a COLA pre viously established by

this Court for a hig hly

qualified non-a

ttorney prac titioner, we will dec line to adopt a sepa rate presumptive high-e nd preva iling market rate for Mr. Over by . Whether a non- attorney prac titioner has bee n admitted to pr actice befor e this Court under Rul e 46 (b )( 1) or 46 (b )( 2) is no t a fa c tor fo r c on sid e ratio n in awa rd ing re a so na

ble EA JA fee s. Ins te a d, the Court

wi ll l oo k to the ind ivi du a l no n- a tto rn e y pr a c tit ioner 's sk ill and

e xpe ri e nc e in deter mining an appropr iate fee. See W ilson v . Principi , 391 F.3d 1203, 1207 ( Fe d. Cir. 2004) (noting that the Court can c onsider the " particula r non-attorney

prac titioner' s level of e x perie nce a nd
e xpe rt ise wh e n d e te rm ininga re a so na ble and a pp ro pr iate fe e " ); Abbey , 17 Vet.App. at 292 ("Rec ognizi ngtha

t th e sk ill and experienc e of both super vised and unsuper

vised non-attorne y pr a c tit ion e rs a dmi tte d to pr a c tic e in t his Cou rt may be e xce pti on a l, t

he Cour t w ill c on sid e r t

he se fac tors for de termining rea sonable fe es for these pra ctitioners." ). Mr. Over by , despite his unique role in re prese nting ve tera ns befor e this Court, is not an
a tto rn e y and is n ot e nti tle d to be c omp e ns a te d at th e $1 25 .0 0 p e r h our s tatut or y c a p f or a tto rn e y fe e s. He is, ho we ve r, a

no n- a tto rn e y

pr a c tit ion e r, and

we wi ll use ou r prec ede nt a s guid anc e in deter mining an a

ppropriate fee . The Co u rt h as alre ady established–and w e re iterate here –that the presumptive hig h-end pr evailingmarke t rate f or hig hly qualified non-attorney

prac titioners (notIn A p o d a ck i s, t hi s C our t es t abl i s hed Ju ne 20 01 as t he bas e mont h f or c om put i ng adj us t ment s t o t he $1 20 per 4 h ou r pr ev ai l i n g ma r k et r at e. T h er ef or e, CO LA f

or n on - at t or n ey pr ac t i t i on er s i s c al cu l at ed by s u bt r ac t i n g t h e CP I

- U f or Jun e 20 01 , 11 0. 5, f

r om t he C P I

- U i n t he r el eva nt mark et ar ea f or t he mi dp oi nt of t he l i t i gat i on. T he di f f er enc e i s t hen d ivid e d b y 1 1 0 .5 . T h e re su lti n g p e rc e n ta g e is m u lti p lied b y the p re v a ili n g m a rk e t ra te

. S e e A p o d a c k is , 19 V et

. A pp . at 95.
G en er al l y , t h e mi dpoi n t of t h e l i t i g at i on i s "t h e dat e up on w h i ch a n a ppel l an t ' s pr i n ci pal br i ef , mot i on , or 5 pet i t i on i s f

i l ed wi t h t h e Cour t

. " El c y z y n v
. Br own , 7 V et. A p p . 1 7 0 , 1 8 1 (1 9 9 4 ). In c ase s, su ch a s here , w he re the c ase was r emanded pri or t o f i l i ng of t he bri ef

s , t he m i d po i nt i s t he mi dd l e mont h bet ween wh i ch t he major i t y of wor k w as p e rfo rm e d

. See , e .g . A p o d a c k is , 19 V et

. App. a t 95. W here t he m i d p o i nt o f t he l i t i gat i o n f al l s o n a m o nt h where t here i s no corr es po ndi ng C P I

- U , C P I

- U i s cal cul at ed by ave r agi ng t he C P I

- U bet ween t he mo nt h pri or and t he mo nt h a f t er t he m i d p o i nt and round i ng t he average t o t he nearest t ent h. See , e .g . i d. 7 simply highly qualified paraleg als) is $120.00 per hour with the COL A as de scribed in Ap od ac k is

. 4 Se e Ap od ac k is , 1 9 V e t.A

pp . at 96 (" [Th e ] pr e va ili ngmark e t r a te e sta bli sh e d in 20 01

. . . r e pr e se nts eff ectively the pre sumptive high-e nd of the pre vailing- marke t-rate s cale for a non[-] attorney pr a c tit ion e r . . . ." ). Pa g e s o f a ff ida vit s fr om and

a bo ut M r. Ov e rb y

we re su bmi tte d to thi s Co ur

t to persua de u s o f h i s q ualifications and expertise. Be cause Mr. Over by is a hig hly -qualified nonattorney prac titioner, the Court will award f ees a ccor dingly

at a r ate of

$120.00 per hour . The Court observe s that not all non-attorney prac titioners will be entitled to EAJ A fe es at the r ate of $120.00 pe r h our; howev er, us in g tha t amou nt a s guid anc e , in

the futur e , s ing le Judg e s o f t his Cou rt wi ll
e xer c ise the ir

dis c re tio n to de te rm ine wh e the r t he pa rt ic ula r n on -a tto rn e y pr a c tit ion e r' s sk ill , experience , and expertise wa rra nt that or a lesser a

mount. Cf. Pe nte c os t , 17 Vet.App. at 261 (" The Court n o t e s t h a t n o t a l l n o n - a tt o r n e y pr a c tit ion e rs wo uld

po sse ss M r. Ste wa

rt ' s im pr e ssi ve c re de nti a ls andth us , i n o th er cas es, a $1 20 per h ou r rat e ma y no t b e reas on abl e or app rop ri a t e u n d er VBA section 403." ). Her e, the appellant asserted at oral arg ument, and the Secre tary did not contest, that Marc h 2006 is an appropr iate month t o d es i g nate a s the midpoint of the liti g ation. The CPI -U for the 5 Wa s h in g to n , D

. C. a

r e a for that month was 126.8. See CPI -Washington- Ba ltimore, D C- M D

- V A

- WV Are a , a v ail ab leat htt

p:/ /w ww .b ls.gov/

ro 3/f a x_91 56 .h tm. Us ingthe fo rm ula e sta bli sh e d in Ap od ac k is , Mr. Over

by is entitled to recove r fe es at the r ate of $137.70 per hour

.8 C. Fee s Requested Havingdete rm i n ed t h e appr opriate hour ly rate for Mr. O verby , the Court must determine whether the fe es re quested he re a re r easona

ble. See28 U. S.C. § 2 41 2( d) (2 )( A) ; Teten v. Principi , 16 Ve t.A pp . 1 12 , 1 18 (2 00 2) ; Pe rry v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 319, 3 2 7 (1 9 9 8). " The Court has wide di scr eti on in th e awardof at to rney fees un der t he EAJ A." Chesser , 11 Vet.App. at 501(citing He ns le yv . Ec k e rh ar t , 461 U. S. 4 24 , 4 37 (1 98 3) ; Chiu v. United States , 948 F.2d 711, 713 ( Fe d. Cir. 2001); and Vi da l v . B ro wn , 8 Ve t.A pp . 4 88 , 4 93 (1 99 6) ); Evington , 1 8 V e t.A pp . at 33 4; Abbey , 17 Vet.App. at 290. "[T]he 'pr oduct of re asonable hours times a re asonable rate ' normally provides a 'reaso nab le' at to rney 's fee. " Blum v. Stenson , 4 6 5 U. S

. 8 8 6 , 8 9 7 (1 9 8 4 ) ( qu o t i n g Hensley , 4 61 U. S.
a t 43 3) ; Abbey , 17 Vet.App. at 290. I n deter mining rea sonablene ss, the Court w ill consider whethe r the hours cla imed are (1) unrea sonable on their fac e; (2) otherwise contra indicated by the fa ctors for deter mining re asonable ness itemized in Hensley , 461 U.S. at 430 n.3, or Usser y v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 51, 53 ( 1997); or (3) persua sively opposed by

the Secre tary

. See Che

sser , 11 Vet.App. at 502. Th e it emi z ati on in th e EAJ A ap pl ica ti on refl ect s, int er al ia, 0. 2 h ou rs f or "[ wri ti ng] to cli ent "; 0.3 hours for " [r] eview[ing ] C ourt' s notice of doc keting "; 0.6 hour s for " [r] eview[ing ] l itigation file. Telephone conver sations with VA counsel" ; 0.3 hours for " [f] ax[ ing] materia ls to VA counsel" ; and
sev eral ot her ent ri es for "[t ] ele ph on e cal l t o VA cou ns el. " See EAJA Application, Affidavit at 2-4. The Court has r eviewe d eac h of the 29 e ntries on Mr. Ove rby ' s i t em i z ed stateme nt and conc ludes that th e inf

or matio n p ro vid e d r e g ard ingse ve ra l ta sks is to o vague and la c kin g in d e ta il t o p e rm it eff ective r eview of

the application. For example, in descr ibing his r eview of the re cord, te lephone calls to VA, and corr espondenc e with the appellant, he has not ade quately identified the purpose of these a ctivities. Accor dingly , the Court will r ed u ce t h e appellant's billable hours by 2.0. See Baldridge v. Nicholson , 1 9 V e t.A pp . 2 27 , 23 5 (2 00 5) (n oti ng that, f or EA JA f e e s " to b e awa

rd e d in fu ll, an a pp lic ant m

us t su bmi t e vid e nc e of

ho ur s w or

ke d in th e fo rm

of a bil lin g state me nt t

hat is specific and deta i l ed ")

. T h e Court thus will awa rd the a ppellant EAJA fees in the amount of $3,216.33 with respec t to the requested reimbursement of fee s and expenses as se t forth in his init ial application (22.7 hour s of work multiplied by the hourly rate of $137.70 plus $63.00 in expenses).T he ap p ell an t ap p ea rs t o ha ve ca l cu l ated t his rat e b ase d o n a C O L A ad d ed t o an und eterm i ne d ho urly b ase 6
ra te

. 9 T h e S e c r e t ar

y u r g e s th i s C o urtt o d i s a l l o w a l l f e e s re qu e ste d f

o r p r e p ar a t i o no f

th e E A JA app l ication bec ause the appellant f ailed to provide suppor

t for the f ee r equeste d. See Ap p el l ee 's Re s p o n s e to E A JA Ap p . a t 9

. T h e a p p e ll an t s e e k s $ 3 7 5

. 0 0 f o r 2

. 5 h o ur s o f a tt o r

n e y s fee s for pre p ar at i o n o f t he EAJA application and a ffidavit at a rate of $150.00 per

hour, and $400.00 f

or reimburse ment of 2.5 hours of a ttorney fee s associate d with prep ar at i o n of the Reply at a r ate of $160.00 per hour

. See EAJA App. Af fidavit of L andon E. Ove rby , at 4; Reply at 12, Attachme nt 6 3 , A f f i d av i to f R o n a l d L

. S m i th , a t2

. W e d o n o tf i nd the tim e s p e n ti np r e p ar a t i o no f th e E A JA
a pp lic a tio n a

nd a ff ida vit unre a so na

ble , but a g re e that an awa rd of fe e s in pr e pa

ra tio n of the Re ply is unw arr ante d he re be c a

us e the ini tia l EAJA a

pp lic a tio n p ro vid e d n o ju sti fi c a tio n f or the se e min g ly arbitra ry hourly fee reque sted. See Scarborough v. Nicholson , 1 9 V e t.A pp . 2 53 , 2 66 (2 00 5) . In th is

r e g ar d , t h e C o u r tw i l l d e ny f e e s f o r th e 2

. 5 h o ur s r e qu e s t e d f o r p r e p ar a t i o no f

th e R e p l y. Acc ording ly , t h e C o urt will gr ant the appe llant's EA J A application for fe es and e x penses in the reduc ed amount of $3,216.33.

III . C ON CL USI ON Up 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 , th e a

p p e l l an t ' s E A J A a

p p l i c a t i o ni s G RA

N T E D IN PART in the amount of $3,216.33.