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

N O . 03-1008(E) C H A RLES F. E VI NGTON , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , 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 Septembe r 13, 2004 )

Barton F. Stichman , Nan c yL. F oti , and J am es W . S te war t (nonattorne y

prac titioner), all of Was hin g ton , D .C. , w e re on the ple a din g s f

or the a pp e lla nt. Tim S. Mc Cla in , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd al l C amp be ll , A s s i s t a

nt G e n e r a l C o u

n se l; Carolyn F. W ashington , Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Richard May erick, all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the plea ding f

or the a ppellee.
Be fore I VERS, STEI

NB ERG, and GREENE, Judges

. STEI NB ERG, Judge : Be fore the Court is the a ppellant' s J anuar

y 9, 2004, application, filed thr ou g h c ouns e l, f

or a tto rn e y fe e s and e xpe ns e s p ur su ant t o th e Eq ua l A c c e ss t o Just ic e Ac t, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (EAJA). The Sec reta ry filed a r esponse, a

nd the appellant filed a reply there to. For the re asons set for

th below, the Court will gr ant the appe llant's a pplication.

I. Bac kgr ound T h e a p p e l l a n t , t h r o u g h a t t o r

n e ys B art o nF

. S t i c h m anan d N an c y L

. F o t i , an d

n o n a t t o r n e ypr a c tit ion e r J a m e s W

. S t e w ar t , p r e v i o u s l y

s o u g h tr e v i e w o f

a M ar c h 7 , 2 0 0 3 , B o ar d

o f V e t e r an s' Appea ls (BV A) de ci s ion that denied his claim for an incr ease d ratingfor De partment of V eter ans Af fairs ( VA) service -conne cted residuals of a shell-fra g ment wound of the left flank with a compound commi n u t ed fr ac t u re of the ilium, rated as 20% disabling. O n Dec ember 4, 2003, the2

parties filed a joint motion to terminate based on a stipulated ag ree ment. See U.S. V ET . A PP . R. 42. J udg ment was issued a

nd the manda t e was entered on D ece mber 11, 2003. B y the terms of the stipulated ag ree ment, the appellant was g rante d an incr ease d ratingto 50%, eff ective f rom J uly 1, 1971, under 38 C.F .R. § 4.73, Diag nostic Code 5317 (2002). I n J anuar y 2004, the appellant filed an EAJA application seeking $4,124.76 in attorney fee s
and e xpe ns e s. Ap pli c a tio n (A pp l.) a t 1. He c a lc ulate s the re qu e ste d amou nt b a se d o n ( 1) 30 .5 ho ur s, at a r ate of

$126.73 per hour , spent by the s enior litigation parale g al, Mr. Stewar t, who is employ ed by the Natio na l V e te ra

ns L e g a l Se rv ic e s Prog ra

m (NV L SP) and is ad

mitte d to pra c tic e be fo re thi s Court as a nonattorney

prac titioner; (2) 1 hour spent by attorney Foti, a membe r of the Court' s bar, at a r ate of

$148.45 per hour ; (3) .5 hour spent by attorney Stichman, a member of t he C ourt' s bar, at a r at e o f $ 1 4 8

. 4 5 p er

h o u r; an d (4 ) e x p en s es i nt h e a m o u n to f $ 3 6

. 8 1

. Ap p l

. at 5 -6

. M r. S t ew ar t 's
re qu e ste d h ourl y

ra te wa s c a lc ulate d " by

a dd ingthe inc re a se in t

he Con sumer P ri c e I nd e x for Al l Urba n Consumers [ (CPI -AL L )] for the Washing ton, D.C., area since June 2001 to [ the] $120 per hour" rate that this Court has previously approve d for Mr. Stewa

rt in Abbey

v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 282 (2003), a

nd Pentec ost v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 257 ( 2003). Appl. Exhibi t ( Ex h.) D. Attac hed to the EAJA application are , inter alia, a ffidavits fr om repre sentatives of thre e Washingt on, D.C., law firms stating that the pre vailing market rate for experience d and spec ialized parale g als rang es from $130 to $250 per

hour. Appl. Exhs. F, G, H. T h e S ec re t ar

y "co n ce d es t h at [ t h e] ap p el l an ti s a 'p re v ai l i n g p ar t y [ ] ' an d t h at t h e S ec re t ary 's position was not 'substantially justified.'" Response (Res p.) at 1. The Secre tary asser ts that Mr. Stewart should be a

war ded, instead of

the $126.73-pe r-hour

fee reque sted, a $120-pe r - h o u r f ee ba sed on the Court' s opinions in Abbey and Pe nte c os t , both su pra ; the Secre tary

argues that a c ost-of-living adj u s t m en t (COL A) is not available for Mr. Stewa rt bec ause the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the F eder al C i rcuit (Fede ral Circuit) in Levernie r Construction, Inc. v. United States , 947 F.2d 497 (F e d

. Ci r . 1 9 9 1 ) , " r e je c te d a CO L A

. . . [f

o r ] th e s tatuto r

y r a te p a id to p ar a le g a ls ." Resp. at 2. I n reply , the appellant argues t hat t he Feder al C ircuit did not hold that a para leg al could neve r be compe nsated unde r the EAJA at a rate exceedingthe statutory maxi mum, but "a ctually held that
a [C OL A] c annot be adde d to the prevailing m arket rate fo r e ith e r atto rn e y s o r p ara le g a ls. " Re ply3

a t 8 ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . A lte rn a tiv e ly , h e c on te nd s th a t, e ve n if the Se c re tary

we re c or re c t in his interpre tation of Levernie r , this Court is not prec luded from permitting a COL A t o be applied to the statutory maxi mum for a nonattorney p ra cti tioner bec ause, in a ccor dance with section 403 of the Veter ans B enef

its Act of 2002 (VB A), P ub. L . No. 107-330, § 403, 116 Stat. 2819, 2833, the Court i s a u t h o r i z e d " t o aw ar d f

e e s f o r n o n [ ] a t t o r

n e y p r a c t i t i o n e r s ' i nana m o u n td e t e r m i n e d a p p r o p r i a t e b y' th[ e] Court." Reply

at 8-9.

II. Ana lys is

A. E lig ibi lit y fo r Awa rd Th is C ourt

ha s juri sd ic tio n to awa

rd re a so na ble attor ne y fe e s and e xpe ns e s p ur su ant t o 28 U. S.C. § 2 41 2( d) (2 )( F ). He re , th e a pp e lla nt' s Jan ua ry 20 04 EA JA a

pp lic a tio n w a s f

ile d w ith in t h e 3 0

- d ay

E A JAa p p l i c a t i o np e r i o d

s e tf o rt h i n2 8 U

. S

. C

. § 2 4 1 2 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( B ) an d s a t i s f i e s t h e E A JA "a pplication-conte nt specifications", Scarborough v. Principi , ___ U.S. __, __, No. 02-1657, slip.
o p . at 1 1 , 2 0 0 4 W L 9 3 8 0 2 7 , at * 9 (M ay 3 , 2 0 0 4 ), b ec au s e t h e ap p l i ca t i o n co n t ai n edt h e f

o l l o wi n g: (1) A show ing that, by

virtue of the Court' s re m and, he is the prevailing party within the meaning of the EAJA; (2) a showingthat he is a party elig ible for an awa rd under the EAJA bec ause his net worth does not excee d $2,000,000; (3) an a lleg ation that the position of the Secret ary was not substantially

justified; and (4) an itemiz ed fe e stateme nt. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A ), (1) (B ), (2) (B ); Cullens v. Gober , 14 Vet.App. 234, 237 ( 2001) (e n banc) (lis t i n g fo u r EAJA-application content require ments). As to preva iling-pa

rty status, this C ourt stated in Rollins v. Principi : I n o rd e r to re c e ive an EAJA awa rd , an EA JA a

pp lic ant m

us t be a pr evailing party

. See 28 U.S .C . § 24 12 (d )( 1) (A ) ( " c ourt sh a ll awa rd to a pr e va ili ng pa

rt y . . . f e e s a nd oth e r e xpe ns e s" ); Br idd

e ll [ v. Principi, 16 Ve t.A

pp . 267 , 2 71 (2 00 2) ]: Su mn e r [ v. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 256, 260- 61 (2001) ( en banc ), aff' d sub nom. Vaughn v. Principi , 3 36 F .3 d 1 35 1 (Fed . Ci r. 20 03 )]: Cullens , [ su pra ]. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating preva iling-pa rty status under the EAJA. Se e Su mn e r, Br idd e ll , and Cu ll e ns , a ll supra. Pr e va ili ng -p art

y status ari se s in

e ith e r o f t

wo wa y s. Th e fi rs t is throug h a dire ction of the Court, evide nt wi t hin the terms of the partic u l ar Court decision upon which the a ppellant is basing the EA JA a pp lic a tio n, fo r V A t o a

wa rd VAbe nefi ts t o th e a

pp e lla nt.4 Sumner , 15 Vet.App. at 264-65. The second is throug h the g rant of a mer its-stag e Court re mand that was predic ated upon a dminist rative err or. Ibid. I n order

for a rema nd to have be en pr ed i ca t ed upon a dmi nis tr a tiv e e rr or , th e re mand mus t eith e r (1 ) have be e n d ir e c te d in a Court opinion, decision, or order that contained a Court re cog nition of administrative e rror

or (2) have be en g ra n t ed o n the basis of a conce ssion of err or by

the Secr etar

y . McCormick

[ v. Principi , 16 Ve t.A pp . 407 , 411 (2 00 2) ]; Br idd e ll , 16 Vet.App. at 271-72. The C o u rt will not "investig ate at the EAJA prevailing -par ty stag e the val id it y , t y

pe, or n atu re of

th e adm in is tr ati ve error ." McCormick , [ su pra ]. Rollins , 17 Vet.App. 294, 298 ( 2003). In t h e i n s t an tc a s e , t h e S e c r e t ar y c o n c e d e s t h a tt h e a

p p e l l an ti s a

p r e v a i l i n g p art y; fu rt he r m o r e , b e c a

u s e t h e C o u r t ' s D e c e mbe r 1 1, 20 03 , te rm inatio n o rd e r w a s p re dic a te d o n th e pa rt ie s' Dec ember

2003 joint motion to terminate the appea l in acc ordanc e with the ter ms of the settlement ag ree ment, including the Secre tary ' s consent to assig n the appellant an increase d rating of 50% for his se rv ice -con nected

re sid ua ls o f a sh e ll- fr a g me nt w ound , th e Court ho lds that th e a

pp e lla nt i s a prev ail in g part y

for EAJ A pu rpo ses by

vi rtue o f t h e "a w ard [ of] VA b enef it s t o t he ap pel lan t", Rollins , su

pra . See 28 U. S .C. § 2 41 2( d) (1 )( A) ; Buck hannon Board & Care Home, I nc. v. W . Va. Dep't of Health &Human Re s., 53 2 U. S. 59 8, 60 4 (2 00 1) (n oti ng that pr ior c a se law " e sta

bli sh [es ] that enfor cea

ble judg ments on the merits and [settlement ag ree ments enfor ced thro u gh]
c ourt -o rd e re d c on se nt de c re e s c re a te the ' mate ri a l a lte ratio n of the le g a l r e latio ns hip of the pa rt ie s'

n ec es s ary t o p erm i t an aw ar d o f a t t o rn ey 's fe es " ( qu o t i n g Tex. State Teache rs Ass' n v. Garland Inde

p . Sch

. Di st. , 4 89 U. S. 7 82 , 7 92 -9 3 ( 19 89 )) ); Sumn e r and McCormick

, both su pra ; Cullens , su

pra (conc luding that Sec reta

ry did not contest that appellant was a prevailing party and " ag ree [i ng ] t hat pursuant to the ter

ms of the settlement, the a ppellant is a pre vailing pa rty ")

. Moreove r, the Sec reta

ry conce des that his positi on was not substantially justified. Resp. at 1; see McCormick

, 16 Vet.App. at 412 (deter mining that, "[ u ]nder the EAJA, the Secre tary has aff irmative def

enses to a f

ee a war d , o n e o f which is to demonstrate that his posit ion at both the
a dmi nis tr a tiv e (B VA ) a

nd lit ig a tio n ( Court ) s ta g e s w a s ' su bs tanti a lly

jus tif ie d' " ); Cullens , su

pra (n oti ngthat " [o]nc e an a

pp e lla nt h a s a lle g e d a lac k of sub sta nti a l justi fi c a tio n, the burd e n shif ts t o the Secr etar

y to p ro v e t h at VA wa s substantially justified in its administrative and litigation5

p o s i t i o n s " )

. B e c a

u s e s u b s t an t i a l j u s t i f

i c a t i o n i s a

na f f i r m a t i v e d e f

e n s e t o b e r a i s e d

b y t h e S e c r e t ar

y, the Court ne ed not addr ess whethe r the Sec reta ry ' s position was "substantially justified" whe n the Secre tary does not asser

t such a de fense

. Se e Coo k v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 226, 237 (1994) ( holding that Cour t need not addr ess whethe r Secr etar y ' s position was "substantially justified" whe n Secre tary did not asser

t suc h a defe nse but e x pressly conce ded that issue), a ff 'd, 68 F.3d 447 ( Fe d. Cir. 1995); see also Abbe

y , 1 7 Ve t

. Ap p . at 2 8 8 (ap p l yi n g Cook , su pra ); Cal ma v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 66, 68- 69 (1 99 8) ; Shaw v. Gober , 10 Vet.App. 498, 501 (1997). B ased on the fore g oing, the Court concludes that th e a pp e lla nt i s e nti tle d to an a

wa rd of EA JA f e e s. B. R e as ona ble ne

ss o f F e eRe que st Th e on ly re ma ini ng qu e sti on in thi s a pp e a l is wh e the r $1 26 .7 3 is an a pp ro pr iate ho ur ly

rate for Mr. Stewa

rt' s work as a nonattorne y prac titioner in this m atter. G ener ally , "[t]he Court has wide di scr eti on in th e awardof att orn ey fees un der th e EAJ A." Che sse r v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 497, 501 (1998). F or work pe rfor

med by an attorne y , fee s "sha ll not be awar ded in excess of $125 per hour unless the cour

t determines th at an i n cr ease in the cost of living or a spe cial fa ctor, such a s the limit ed ava ilability

of qualified attorney s for t h e proc eeding s involved, justifies a highe r fe e." 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)( A)(ii). In Sa nd ov al v . B ro wn , the Court c onsidered whether E AJ A f ees could be awa

rded for work done by an attorne y -super vised law student. Sandoval, 9 Vet.App. 177 (1 99 6) . In d e c idi ngin t

he a ff ir mativ e , th e Court

he ld t hat th e a pp ro pr iate ho ur ly rate fo r p ara le g a ls, law cle rks, and law

students was the pre vailing marke t r ate for such service s, or the then-statutory cap of $75 per hour

as established by 38 U.S.C. § 2412(d)( 2)(A) , plus COL A, whichever w as lower

. Id. at 1 8 1 (c i t i n g Elc

y zy n v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A

pp . 17 0, 18 1 (1 99 4) ). Se ve ra l y e ars late r, the Court a lso h e l d t h a tt h e w o r

k o f a t t o r n e y - s u p e r v i s e d n o n a t t o r

n e y p r a c t i t i o n e r s i s " c o mp e n s a b l e u n d e r t h e E A JA at an a ppropriate rate ". McCrack en v. Principi , 1 4 Ve t

. Ap p . 2 6 9 , 2 7 4 (2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g Sandoval , 9 Vet.App. at 181). The Court stated in McCrack en that "the appropr iate hourly rate for suc h fee s is e it h e r th e p r e v a il in g ma

r k e t r a te f

o r s u c h s e r

v ic e s o r th e r a te s e t f

o rth in 28 U.S.C. § 24 12 (d) (2) (A), adj us tedby th e app li cabl e [ CO L A] , 'whi chev er i s l owe r'." Mc C r acke n , at 272 (q u o t i n g Sa nd

ov al, su pra ); cf. Leve rnier , su

pra .6

VB A § 40 3 p ro vid e s: T h e author ity

of the United States Court of A ppeals for

Veter ans Claims to award re asonable fee s and expenses of a t t o rn ey s under se c t ion 24 12 (d ) o f t itl e 28 , U nit e d St a te s Co de , s ha ll i nc lud e a uth or ity to awar d fee s and expenses, in an am ount de te rmine d a pp ro priat e b y t h eU n it e d S t a t es C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r V e te ra ns C

l a i ms , of individuals admitt ed to prac tice bef ore the Court as non[] attorney prac titioners unde r subsection (b) or (c) of Rule 46 of the Ru l es of Practice and Procedure of the United States Court of Appe als for Ve te ra ns Cla ims

. VB A § 403 (e mphasis added) . This provision empowers the Court to aw ard f ees " in an amount deter mined appropr iate" to nonattorney prac titioners adm itted to practice befor e this Court under Rule 46(b) a

nd (c)

. See A bbey , 1 7 V e t.A pp . at 29 0; Pe nte c os t , 17 V e t.A pp . at 25 9; U .S. V ET
. A PP
. R. 46(b), (c). I n section 403, Congr ess recog nized that the nonattorne y prac titioners who prac tice befo re t hi s C ou rtare "un iq ue an d .

. . mo re ak in to att orn ey s th an t hey are t o p aral egals ." Pe nte c os t , 17 Ve t.A pp . at 26 0; see Abbe

y , 17 Vet.App. at 292 (conc luding that "se ction 403 itself constitutes
a re cog nition of the special role of nonattorney prac titioners who pra ctice be fore the Court") . The Commi ttees on Ve tera

ns' Affa irs stated i n their Ex planatory Statement reg ardingthe final ve rsion of VB A § 403: Th e Com mitte e s e xpe c t that in de te rm ini ngthe a mou

nt o f r e a so na

ble fee s p ay ab l e to non[ ]attorney prac titioners, the Court will apply the u s u a l r u l e s a p p l i c a b l e t o f e e s f o r t h e w o r k o f o t h e r n o n [ ] a t t o r

n e ys such as pa rale g als and law students based upon the prevailing ma rket rate s f or the kin d a

nd qu ali ty

of the se rv ic e s f

ur nis he d. 28 U. S.C. § 2412(d)( 2)(A)

. See [] Sandoval [ , ] 9 Vet.App. [at] 181[ .] 148 C ONG
. R EC . S11338 (daily ed. F eb. 18, 2002); 148 C O NG
. R EC
. H9 0 06-07 (da ily ed. Fe b. 14, 2002) [hereina fter E x planatory Statement]. Apply ing se ctio n 403 in Abbey and Pe nte c os t , th e Cou

rt he ld t hat $1 20 pe r h our w a s a
rea sonable and appropr iate rate for Mr. Stewa rt' s work in those matters. Abbey , 17 Vet.App. at 292 (holding $120"' rea sonable' and ' appropr iate' based on [Mr. S tewar t's] reputation, skill, and special
e xpe rt ise and qu a lif

ic a tio ns a s an e xpe ri e nc e d a dv oc a te in v e te ra ns law" ); Pentec ost, 17 Vet.App. at 260-61 (stating that " [w] e c annot, in the exercise of common sense, or der that non[ ]attorney prac titioners be compensated as attorney s, but neither is their compe nsation to b e l i m i t ed by the7

preva iling mar

ket rate for pa

rale g als" ). The Court did not state i n either opinion whether the $120 rate was c onsidered the preva iling mar ket rate or a

cap c ompara

ble to the $125 -per -hour ( plus COL A) attorney -fe e rate established by the EAJ A. Nor was the i ssue before the Court as t o whether the hourly

rate of a nonattorney

prac titioner could be a

ug mented by

a COL A. Se e Pe nte c os t , 17 Vet.App. at 261 (holding that "[g ]i ven his extensive ex perie nce in ve tera ns law, the re quest that the servic es of James Stewart, the non[] attorney prac titioner in this ca se, be va lued at $120 per hour (w ith ou t CO L [A]) is r e a so na ble " ); see also Abbe

y , 17 Vet.App. at 292. Th e Se c re tary

a sse rt s th a t Le v e rn ie r, su pra , is controlling of t he fee-r ate outcome here and that the Court thus should deny the use of a

COL A in connec tion with the computation of a

r e a s o n a b l e a n d a p p r o p r i a t e f

e e f o r M r . S t e w art ' s n o n a t t o r

n e y - p r a c t i t i o n e r

w o r k

. R e s p . a t2

. In Levernie r , the Fe dera l Circuit held that " althoug h the EAJA allows for the rec overy of para leg al fe es . . . neither the cap on [EAJA] fee s n o r t h e fe es t hemselves may be aug mented by

a COL A." Levernie r, 947 F.2d at 503. Levernie r , how e ve r, did no t con sid e r EA JA fe e s for tho se ind ivi du a ls in the unique role of

nonattorney

prac titioners, such as Mr. Stewa rt , an d wa s d ec ided prior to the
enac tment of VB A § 403. Moreove r, in Levernie r the prevailing market rate for the par aleg al work in question was lower

than the then $75-per -hour EAJA cap on attorne y fee s; hence , the par aleg al rate awa rded the re w as re quired to be the preva iling market rate , as t o which it is indisput able that a COL A does not a

ttach. See Lev ernier, 9 4 7 F. 2 d 5 0 3 -0 4 (c i t i n g Hirschey

v. FERC , 777 F.2d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ). Finally , n o t h i n g i n Levernie r would limit this Court's authority to awar d a fe e premised on a

preva iling mar

ket rate for a

nonattorney

prac titioner' s work. The ref ore, Levernie r

is not disposit ive of the issue in the pr esent c ase. As previously

noted, the Court has wide discretion in aw ar ding f ees unde r the EAJA, s ee Chesser, supra, and

, b y v i rt u e of VBA § 403, ha s wide discre tion in awardingEAJA fees for the work of nona

ttorney prac titioners, see Abbe

y , 17 Vet.App. at 290-91 (stating that VB A § 403 "pr ovides this Court with wide discretion in de termining what fee is ' appropr iate' for the work of a pa rt ic ula r n on []att or

ne y pr a c tit ion e r" ); Pe nte c os t , 17 Vet.App. at 261 (VB A § 403 "g rants the Court broad discr etion in determiningwhat would constitute a r easona ble fe e for a par ticular non[] attorney prac titioner") . I n deter

mining a r easona

ble and a ppropriate fee for Mr. Stewart in this case, the Court must balance prec edent a nd law instructing that nonattorney prac titioners in the unique veter ans8

benef its sy stem are more akin to attorney s than they are to para leg als, see V B A § 4 0 3 ; A bbey , 17 Vet.App. at 292 ; P e nte c os t , 17 Vet.App. at 260, with the rec og nition that gene rally nonattorney pr a c tit ion e rs are no t th e e qu iva le nt o f a tto rn e y s and

c omp e ns a tin g the m in a mann e r c omp ara ble to para leg als is not, per se, unr easona ble, see Abbe

y and Pentec ost, both su

pra ; E xplanator

y State me nt, supra. I n light of the Court's broad discretion, and beca use the nonattorney -pra ctitioner work w as perf ormed fr om April 2003 to D ece mber 2003 in the instant c ase, a s compare d to the J anuar y 2001- to-J anuar y 2002 and the September 2000- to-September 2002 w ork per iods in Abbey and Pe nte c os t , respe ctively , and in light of the appe llant's uncontested evidence that the prevailing market rate for experience d para leg als in Washington, D.C., is any wher e fr om $130 to $250 pe r hour and that Mr. Stewart is hig hly

experience d in the prac tice of ve tera ns benef its law, the Court holds t h at the fe e rate of $126.73 per

hour re quested by

the appe llant is reas o n ab l e and appr opriate a s a pre vailing
mark e t ra te fo r Mr . Stew art ' s n on a tto rn e y -p ra c tit ion e r w or k d ur ingthe tim e pe ri od

inv olv e d in

thi s
case . Se e Ab be

y , Pe nte c os t, S

an do v al, and Elcyzy n , a ll su pra . We are no t c a lle d up on by the rate reque sted for Mr . Stewart' s work in this case to determine whether a nonattorney

prac titioner can be compensated at the $125- hourly -ca p-plus-COL A EAJA s tatutory rate if that prac titioner' s preva iling marke t rate is g reater than that statutory rate beca use, in this case, the $126.73- per- hour pre vailing

m ar k e tr a t e f o r M r . S t e w art ' s w o r

k i s c l e ar l y

l e s s t h ant h e $ 1 2 5

- h o u r l y - c a p - p l u s - C O L A E A JA statutory rate

. See VB A § 40 3; se e als o M c Cra c k e n, su pra ; cf

. Sa nd ov al and Elcyzy n , both su pra . No r d o w e in t

his c a se de c ide any mor e tha n that un de r VB A § 40 3 the rate of $1 26 .7 3 p e r h our i s
a re asonable and appr opriate pr evailing marke t rate unde r the EAJA for Mr. Stewart' s work during the per tinent time period involved in this case.

III. Conclusi on Upon c o n s id e r a ti o no f

th e f o r e g o in g an d

th e p arti e s ' p le a d in g s , th e Co u rt w il l g r an t the appellant' s J anuar

y 9, 2004, EAJA application in full in t he amount of $4,124.76. APPL I CATI ON GRANTE D.