Padgett v. Shinseki
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13301
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Padgett died during the pendency of his Veterans Court appeal seeking service-connection benefits.
- The Veterans Court initially awarded Padgett service connection en banc but withdrew after learning of his death; the court then denied substitution for Mrs. Padgett.
- This court reversed, holding death did not moot the case and that substitution could preserve the judgment for accrued benefits.
- After remand, the Veterans Court issued decisions nunc pro tunc, awarding Padgett benefits, and later permitted substitution for EAJA proceedings on Padgett's claim as estate representative.
- Mrs. Padgett sought EAJA fees covering attorney time spent both before and after Padgett's death; the Veterans Court limited post-death fees to pre-death work on the merits, denying post-death hours.
- The issue presented is whether a surviving spouse serving as estate representative may recover EAJA fees for hours expended after the veteran's death to obtain a nunc pro tunc judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can a surviving spouse, as estate representative, recover EAJA fees after death? | Padgett: post-death fees related to pursuing nunc pro tunc relief are recoverable. | Shinseki: post-death work is not recoverable under EAJA. | Yes; post-death EAJA fees are recoverable. |
| Does the estate representative have standing to pursue EAJA on the deceased veteran's claim? | Padgett: standing exists via status as personal representative and accrued benefits link. | Shinseki: substitution/standing not properly established for EAJA claims. | Estate representative has standing to seek EAJA on the estate's behalf. |
| Is the court's interpretation of EAJA's allowances for nunc pro tunc and post-death fees subject to appellate review? | Padgett: statutory interpretation supports allowing post-death fees; method is consistent with EAJA remedial purpose. | Shinseki: no EAJA post-death fee rule supported by statute or history. | Jurisdiction exists to interpret EAJA to permit post-death fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1358 (Fed.Cir.2009) (accrued-benefits survivors can pursue EAJA fees related to the veteran's claim)
- Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364 (Fed.Cir.2007) (Padgett I; substitution and nunc pro tunc considerations for deceased veteran's claim)
- Hyatt v. Shinseki, 566 F.3d 1364 (Fed.Cir.2009) (accrued benefits; derivative but separate claims; standing under accrued-benefits framework)
- Smalbein ex rel. Smalbein v. City of Daytona Beach, 353 F.3d 901 (11th Cir.2003) (estate-fee recovery concepts under fee-shifting statutes)
- Geissal ex rel. Geissal v. Moore Med. Corp., 338 F.3d 926 (8th Cir.2003) (fee recovery by estate on behalf of deceased claimant)
- Estate of Woll v. United States, 44 F.3d 464 (7th Cir.1994) (fee-shifting principles for estates)