## Facts

- A veteran sought total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) and initially was denied benefits.
- Attorney Sean A. Ravin represented the veteran before the court under a pro bono arrangement contemplating compensation through an Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) fee award if successful.
- After the court proceedings, Ravin received EAJA fees for his court-level work.
- Ravin and the veteran later signed a separate fee agreement for representation before VA on remand providing for a 20% contingent fee from any past-due benefits and stating that (i) the VA-remand work was “not the same work” as the earlier court work and (ii) EAJA fees would not offset the contingency fee.
- VA ultimately granted TDIU and awarded past-due benefits, withholding 20% for attorney fees under 38 U.S.C. § 5904(d).
- VA applied its EAJA-offset practice and reduced the withheld contingent fee by the amount of EAJA fees previously paid to Ravin.
- The Board of Veterans’ Appeals upheld VA’s offset determination based on existing Veterans Court precedent, and Ravin appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether VA and the Board lawfully offset Ravin’s prior EAJA award against his 20% contingent fee payable from past-due benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 5904(d), notwithstanding contrary terms in the fee agreement.
2. Whether prior Veterans Court precedent requiring such offsets remained controlling.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the Board’s decision.
- VA properly offset the EAJA fees against the contingent fee to prevent impermissible double recovery.
- Contractual language stating that EAJA fees would not offset the contingent fee did not displace the offset requirement.
- The court reaffirmed the continuing validity of its earlier precedent requiring EAJA offsets in this context.

## Legal Principles

- When an attorney receives both an EAJA award for court work and a contingent fee from past-due benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 5904(d) arising from the same benefits matter, the attorney may not retain both in full; the lesser amount must be refunded or offset to avoid double payment for substantially overlapping services.
- Attorney-fee agreements in the veterans benefits system are subject to statutory and precedential limits; parties cannot contract around the EAJA-offset requirement by labeling services as different or by including a no-offset clause.
- Absent intervening authority overruling it, the Veterans Court applies its prior precedent requiring EAJA offsets, and the Board may rely on that precedent.

## Conclusion

The Veterans Court held that VA must reduce a § 5904(d) contingent fee by the amount of EAJA fees previously awarded for substantially overlapping representation in the same benefits matter, and that private fee-agreement terms cannot negate this mandatory offset.


Ravin v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 104 (2019)