Opinion ID: 2449619
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the superior court properly awarded Samantha attorney fees under RCW 74.08.080.

Text: ¶ 30 Pursuant to RAP 18.1(a), respondents request attorney fees on appeal under RCW 74.08.080. [11] Because respondents prevail, we grant their request. Additionally, DSHS disputes the roughly $85,000 in attorney fees awarded to Samantha by the superior court. DSHS argues that the superior court should have capped its award at $25,000 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). See RCW 4.84.350(2) (The amount awarded a qualified party under subsection (1) of this section shall not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars.). DSHS argues that the EAJA is the basis for attorney fees for judicial reviews of agency actions, including eligibility for MPC services; therefore, the EAJA should apply in this case, in which the issue centers on the available amount of MPC services. DSHS asserts that it is illogical that judicial action to determine the amount of services should permit the appellant to receive greater attorney fees than a judicial action to determine overall eligibility for services. ¶ 31 DSHS's argument is unsupported by the statutory language of the EAJA. The EAJA states:  Except as otherwise specifically provided by statute, a court shall award a qualified party that prevails in a judicial review of an agency action ... reasonable attorneys' fees. RCW 4.84.350(1) (emphasis added). In this case, the superior court's award of attorney fees was otherwise provided by statute, namely RCW 74.08.080(3) (providing reasonable attorneys' fees for an appellant challenging an adjudicative order entered in a public assistance program). Therefore, the EAJA does not apply to the case before us. We affirm the superior court's order awarding reasonable attorney and costs.