## Facts

- Mabel A. Akers and John R. Briddell appealed adverse decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court).
- In Briddell’s case, the Secretary initially sought remand citing alleged Board errors regarding staged ratings and rating criteria, but while that motion was pending Congress enacted the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA).
- The Veterans Court granted an unopposed motion to vacate and remand Briddell’s case in light of the VCAA, without ruling on the earlier, error-based remand motion.
- In Akers’s case, the Veterans Court remanded after an intervening Federal Circuit decision (Gordon) created new possibilities affecting her debt/overpayment dispute.
- After receiving remands, Akers and Briddell applied to the Veterans Court for attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
- The Veterans Court denied both EAJA applications, concluding neither claimant was a “prevailing party.”
- Akers and Briddell appealed the EAJA denials to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which consolidated the appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether a claimant becomes a “prevailing party” under EAJA merely by obtaining a Veterans Court remand.
2. Whether remands prompted by intervening changes in law (rather than a judicial finding of agency error or merits-based relief) satisfy the “prevailing party” standard.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the Veterans Court’s denial of EAJA fees in both cases.
- The court held that neither Akers nor Briddell was a “prevailing party” because the remands did not reflect a judicially sanctioned, merits-based change in the parties’ legal relationship.
- For Briddell, the remand was granted in view of the VCAA and not based on a judicial determination that the Board’s decision was erroneous.
- For Akers, the remand reflected reconsideration in light of intervening precedent, not an adjudicated entitlement to relief on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- EAJA fee awards require “prevailing party” status.
- Under Buckhannon, “prevailing party” requires a judicially sanctioned, material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties (not merely a lawsuit that prompts agency reconsideration).
- Buckhannon’s “prevailing party” standard applies to EAJA applications arising from Veterans Court proceedings, as recognized by Federal Circuit precedent.
- A remand does not confer prevailing-party status when it is based on intervening legal developments and lacks a judicial determination of agency error or other merits-based relief.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that Veterans Court remands based on intervening changes in law, without judicial relief on the merits or a court-sanctioned alteration of the parties’ legal relationship, do not make a veteran a “prevailing party” eligible for EAJA attorney fees.


Akers v. Nicholson, 409 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005)