## Facts

- A veteran sought VA service connection for hepatitis A.
- The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied the claim in a January 16, 2004 decision.
- The veteran appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and was represented by counsel.
- Before merits briefing, the parties filed a joint motion requesting vacatur and remand based on acknowledged error in the Board decision.
- On May 3, 2005, the Court granted the joint motion, vacated the Board’s denial, and remanded for further proceedings.
- On May 25, 2005, the veteran applied for attorney’s fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), seeking $6,051.54.
- The Secretary opposed the application, arguing the veteran was not a “prevailing party” because the matter ended in a joint-motion remand without a merits decision.

## Issues

1. Whether a claimant who obtains a Court-ordered vacatur-and-remand pursuant to a joint motion based on Board error is a “prevailing party” under EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
2. Whether the Secretary showed the government’s position was substantially justified or that special circumstances made an award unjust.
3. Whether the requested fees and expenses were reasonable and otherwise met EAJA requirements (timeliness and eligibility).

## Decision

- The Court held the veteran was a prevailing party because the Court’s order vacated an adverse Board decision and remanded due to administrative error, materially altering the parties’ legal relationship.
- The Court determined the EAJA application was timely and the veteran satisfied eligibility requirements.
- The Court held the Secretary did not carry the burden to show substantial justification, given the remand based on acknowledged Board error.
- The Court found no special circumstances making an award unjust.
- The Court granted the EAJA application in full and awarded $6,051.54 in attorney’s fees and expenses.

## Legal Principles

- EAJA authorizes fee awards to a prevailing party in litigation against the United States unless the government’s position was substantially justified or special circumstances would make a fee award unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
- A claimant may be a prevailing party when a court order vacates an adverse agency decision and remands due to administrative error, because the order constitutes a judicially sanctioned, material change in the parties’ legal relationship.
- A joint-motion remand can supply the required judicial imprimatur when it results in an enforceable court order directing corrective adjudication.
- The Secretary bears the burden of proving substantial justification; an agency concession of error supporting remand weighs against a finding of substantial justification.
- When entitlement is established and the amount is unopposed and reasonable, the Court may award the requested EAJA fees and expenses in full.

## Conclusion

The Court granted the veteran’s EAJA application, holding that a Court-ordered vacatur-and-remand based on acknowledged Board error—though obtained by joint motion—confers prevailing-party status, and awarding $6,051.54 because the Secretary failed to show substantial justification or special circumstances barring fees.


Zuberi v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 541 (Vet. App. 2006)