## Facts

- In 1982, a VA regional office denied a veteran’s claim for service connection for schizophrenia, citing no evidence in service medical records.
- The veteran later alleged the 1982 denial was the product of clear and unmistakable error (CUE).
- The Board of Veterans’ Appeals rejected the CUE motion, and the Veterans Court affirmed.
- The Federal Circuit reversed, holding the 1982 RO decision contained CUE.
- After prevailing on the merits, the veteran filed a timely application for attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), seeking $7,800.50 and providing an itemized statement.
- The Secretary did not dispute prevailing-party status, net-worth eligibility, timeliness, or the adequacy of the itemization, but opposed fees as “substantially justified” and argued the application misstated the case as involving the duty to assist rather than CUE.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secretary carried the burden under EAJA to show the government’s overall position was substantially justified, despite the Federal Circuit’s CUE reversal.
2. How the “position of the United States” should be characterized for EAJA purposes when the underlying dispute is a CUE challenge and the fee application uses imprecise terminology.

## Decision

- The Veterans Court granted the EAJA application.
- The court awarded $7,800.50 in attorney’s fees and expenses.
- The court treated the applicant’s mislabeling (duty to assist) as nonfatal and evaluated the reasonableness of the government’s defense of the 1982 decision and related litigation positions.
- The court concluded the Secretary did not establish substantial justification in light of the Federal Circuit’s determination that the 1982 denial contained CUE.

## Legal Principles

- EAJA requires an award of fees to a prevailing party unless the government shows its position was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
- The “position of the United States” includes the government’s underlying agency action and its litigation stance, assessed as a whole for reasonableness in law and fact.
- A judicial finding of CUE—an “undebatable” error under the law and record as they existed—strongly undercuts a claim that the government’s position was substantially justified, though it is not treated as an automatic rule.
- EAJA applications that satisfy statutory pleading elements will not necessarily fail due to imperfect legal labeling when the substance of the dispute and the substantial-justification question are clear and fully litigated.
- When the Secretary does not meaningfully challenge the reasonableness of the requested hours/rates and the record supports the itemized request, the court may award the full amount sought.

## Conclusion

Because the veteran prevailed after the Federal Circuit found CUE in the 1982 denial, and the Secretary did not show a reasonable basis in law and fact for defending that outcome, the Veterans Court granted EAJA fees and awarded the full $7,800.50 requested.


Groves v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 90 (2009)