Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2019/03/18/speigner-v-wilkie-no-16-2811e-argued-october-19-2018-decided-february-28-2019-eaja-teleworking/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:34:15+00:00

Document:
were on the pleadings, for the appellant.
Washington, D.C., for the appellee.
Before SCHOELEN, BARTLEY, and MEREDITH, Judges.
1 Attorney Riley no longer works for NVLSP, but was employed there during Mr. Speigner’s appeal.
Appellant’s Reply Memorandum (Appellant’s Reply) at 6.
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, https://www.bls.gov/cpi/ (last visited Feb. 27, 2019).
Milo and attorney Riley live and telework, respectively. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A).
https://www.telework.gov/reports-studies/reports-to-congress/annual-reports (last visited Feb. 27, 2019). Telework presents a novel issue for this Court when it selects a CPI-U for an attorney who works on a case from his or her residence located in a geographical area different from that of his or her employer’s office.
Mr. Speigner’s EAJA application, but in the reduced amount of $11,390.65.
claim for entitlement to a temporary total disability rating following January 2010 back surgery.
at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/ (last visited Feb. 27, 2019).
for action consistent with the JMPR.
pro bono representation.4 See EAJA Application at 9-10.
28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) (emphasis added).
shifting statutes, such as EAJA.
CPI-Us is applied to increase the statutory hourly rate, and the higher hourly rate is approved.
address for all legal correspondence.6 Id. at 5-6.
7 Vet.App. at 181 (holding that the CPI-U must be applied “where the services were performed”).
firm’s Washington, D.C., office. Baldridge v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 227, 246 (2005).
6 The appellant contends that the same is also true for attorney Riley. See Appellant’s Reply at 6 n.3.
of each of these three offices must be used for the work performed at that office. Id. at 1249-50.
where legal services were rendered.”).
office and that a reading of Parrott warrants using the CPI-U of the Washington, D.C., area.
locations and used the CPI-U for each locality. Parrott, 851 F.3d at 1245, 1250 (emphasis added).
exclusively performed at their residences, their residences serve as their de facto offices.
for the hours worked there to be billed based on the Washington, D.C., area CPI-U.
19 Vet.App. at 246; Mannino, 12 Vet.App. at 243; Elcyzyn, 7 Vet.App. at 181.
the CPI-U should correspond to the locations of their residences.
properly charged to the government under EAJA.
overhead costs at his or her office. Id. at 9, 11.
accessing a corresponding physical computer tower with its own dedicated space in NVLSP’s D.C.
the information technology staff that supports the computer and software is located at the D.C.
is sorted, scanned, and uploaded by staff located at the D.C. office.7 Id. at 7-8.
7 When discussing overhead costs, Mr. Speigner only addressed attorney Milo, not attorney Riley.
were identical to those for attorney Riley when she worked on the case in June 2016 for NVLSP. Id. at 6.
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 574 (4th Cir. 1992), and Dewalt v. Sullivan, 963 F.2d 27 (3d Cir.
measure items related to business expenses. Id.
851 F.3d at 1249-50. The Federal Circuit cited favorably to its holding in Levernier Constr., Inc.
believe that whatever the hourly rate charged by lawyers is 100 percent profit.
for attorney fees should not result in a second major litigation. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S.
(quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983))).
EAJA. See Parrott, 851 F.3d at 1245; Mannino, 12 Vet.App. at 243; Elcyzyn, 7 Vet.App. at 181.
CPI-U of the location of the attorney’s residence must be used.
grants the EAJA application in the reduced amount of $11,390.65.
(“The Court has wide discretion in the award of attorney fees under the EAJA.”).
9 Appellant’s Reply at 13-14; Exhibits C and D.

References: § 2412
 § 2412
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.