This morning, the Federal Circuit released one nonprecedential opinion in a case appealed from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit explained that the Veterans Court had legally erred with respect to its denial of attorney’s fees. Notably, Judge Reyna dissented. Here is the introduction to the majority opinion along with Judge Reyna’s dissent.
Louvall v. Collins (Nonprecedential)
Dennis R. Louvall appeals the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims’s denial of his application for attorney’s fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), following the remand of his case. Louvall v. McDonough, No. 20-7567, 2023 WL 2132756 (Vet. App. Feb. 21, 2023). Because we conclude the Veterans Court legally erred in its determination that Mr. Louvall is not a prevailing party under EAJA, we reverse the Veterans Court’s denial of Mr. Louvall’s EAJA application.
Reyna, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
Our precedent is clear that a claimant who obtains a remand order is not a prevailing party under the Equal Access to Justice Act unless they demonstrate that the remand is explicitly or implicitly predicated on administrative error. There is no such demonstration in this case.
Here, Mr. Louvall obtained a remand order instructing the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to address his argument and the Federal Circuit’s intervening en banc decision in “Lynch in the first instance[.]” Louvall v. McDonough, No. 20-7567, 2022 WL 1302067, at *1 (Vet. App. May 2, 2022). I agree with the majority that the remand is not explicitly predicated on administrative error, see Maj. Op. 7–8, but I do not agree that Mr. Louvall has shown that the remand was implicitly predicated on administrative error. Nor can it be said that a remand for the Board to address Lynch in the first instance necessarily implies administrative error. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.