## Facts

- Two veterans separately appealed Board of Veterans’ Appeals denials of service connection (Baldridge: psychiatric disability and Valium dependence; Demel: hypertension).
- In each merits appeal, the parties filed a joint motion for remand, which the court granted, vacating and remanding the Board decisions (Baldridge: inadequate reasons or bases; Demel: Veterans Claims Assistance Act notice/assistance error).
- After obtaining remands, each veteran applied to the court for attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
- Baldridge sought $11,597.04 and billed work by two attorneys from different firms; Demel sought $3,922.91.
- The Secretary conceded EAJA eligibility in both cases but challenged the requested amounts as unreasonable due to duplication, vague entries, and excessive time for relatively routine tasks.
- The court consolidated the EAJA matters to address common questions concerning fee reasonableness.

## Issues

1. Whether the veterans met EAJA’s statutory requirements for an award of fees and expenses (including prevailing-party status and lack of substantial justification).
2. Whether the amounts sought were “reasonable” under EAJA given alleged duplicative work by multiple attorneys, vague billing descriptions, excessive hours, and the relatively uncomplicated posture of joint motions for remand.
3. What documentation and specificity EAJA applicants must provide for recoverable fees and litigation expenses.

## Decision

- The court held both applicants satisfied EAJA eligibility requirements and granted their applications as to entitlement.
- The court granted the applications only in part as to amount, substantially reducing the requested fees and expenses.
- The court disallowed or reduced time entries it found excessive, redundant, duplicative, or insufficiently documented, including overlapping work performed by multiple attorneys in Baldridge’s case.
- The court reduced or denied expenses that were not adequately supported or not shown to be customarily charged to a fee-paying client.
- A separate opinion concurred in part and dissented in part regarding aspects of the reductions, but entitlement was not disputed.

## Legal Principles

- EAJA authorizes awards of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses to a prevailing party unless the government’s position was substantially justified. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
- The fee applicant bears the burden to justify the amount sought; EAJA does not permit recovery for excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary work.
- Billing records must be itemized and sufficiently specific to allow the court to evaluate the reasonableness and relevance of the work; vague entries may be reduced or denied.
- When multiple attorneys are involved, the court may reduce hours for overlapping tasks unless the applicant shows the work was distinct and reasonably necessary.
- The procedural posture and complexity of the case (including resolution through a joint motion for remand rather than full merits briefing) informs the reasonable number of compensable hours.
- Recoverable expenses must be adequately documented and of a type customarily billed to a client.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed that veterans who obtain vacatur-and-remand orders through joint motions can qualify for EAJA awards, but it required close substantiation of hours and expenses and reduced requests where billing showed duplication, vagueness, or unreasonable time in routine joint-remand litigation.


Baldridge v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 227 (2005)