Wagner v. Shinseki
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8902
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- Wagner, a Navy veteran, sought supplemental EAJA fees for defending his initial EAJA application after remand for VA reconsideration.
- The Veterans Court awarded an initial EAJA fee of $8,601.80, reducing hours challenged by the Secretary.
- Wagner filed a revised supplemental-fee application seeking fees for defending the initial fee request and reviewing the remand decision.
- The Veterans Court denied supplemental fees, reasoning it would be anomalous to compensate for defense of the fee petition when the initial award was substantially reduced.
- This Court reverses, holding plaintiffs may recover supplemental fees commensurate with the degree of success in defending the original fee application.
- On remand, the Veterans Court must apply proper fee-governing standards and provide reasoned explanations for any reductions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wagner is entitled to supplemental EAJA fees defending the initial fee | Wagner | Shinseki | Yes; entitlement depends on degree of success, not total success |
| How to calculate supplemental fees given partial success | Wagner | Shinseki | Award should align with the degree of success on the original fee application |
| Whether on remand the court must explain reductions | Wagner | Shinseki | Yes; the court must provide a reasoned explanation for any hours excluded or reduced |
Key Cases Cited
- Jean v. United States, 496 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1990) (fee-shifting awards may include defense of fee applications; single no-substantial-justification finding suffices)
- Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (U.S. 2004) (EAJA awards cover all phases of litigation and are not limited to merits; relationship to results matters)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (most critical factor is the degree of success; may reduce fees for limited success)
- Fritz v. Principi, 264 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (fee-on-fees adjustments may be made for unreasonable or unsupported hours)
- Thompson v. Gomez, 45 F.3d 1365 (9th Cir. 1995) (illustrates proportional consideration of original-fee success in supplemental fees)
- In re Burlington N., Inc. Emp't Practices Litig., 832 F.2d 430 (7th Cir. 1987) (courts may reduce supplemental fees based on results obtained)
- Schwarz v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 1995) (illustrates proportionate awards in supplemental-fee disputes)
- Prandini v. National Tea Co., 585 F.2d 47 (3d Cir. 1978) (public policy favors compensating attorney fees for fee litigation)
- Norman v. Hous. Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988) (fee disputes regarded in light of overall litigation outcomes)