ORDER
PER CURIAM:
Before the Court is the appellant’s application for payment of attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $4,637.02 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The appellant submitted his EAJA application on October 16, 2000, after the Court, in a September 26, 2000, order, vacated a June 30,1999, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board or BVA). Based on the Board’s review of the appellant’s attorney fee agreement, the Board, in a June 1999 decision, found that the attorney was not eligible for direct payment of attorney fees from past-due benefits. The appellant and Secretary filed briefs before the Court in February and July 2000 respectively, and on September 14, 2000, the appellant filed an unopposed motion to vacate and set aside the Board decision for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Scates v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 62 (2000) (en banc) (per curiam). The Court’s order of September 26, 2000, vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the matter to the Board based on the appellant’s unopposed September 14, 2000, motion.
On February 8, 2002, the Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the appellant’s application for attorney fees pursuant to the EAJA. Halpern v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 416 (2002) (per curiam order). On December 12, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that this Court erred when it determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the appellant’s application for attorney fees pursuant to the EAJA. Halpern v. Principi, 313 F.3d 1364 (Fed.Cir.2002). The Federal Circuit then reversed the Court’s decision, and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id.
The Court notes that the appellant submitted his original EAJA application on October 16, 2000. The Secretary submitted a response to the appellant’s application on January 9, 2001. The appellant submitted a reply to the Secretary’s response on January 17, 2001. On May 29, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001), significantly changed prevailing-party jurisprudence. During the more than two years since the parties submitted their original EAJA pleadings, significant changes have occurred in this Court’s EAJA caselaw as well. See e.g. Sumner v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 256 (2001) (en banc); Flemming v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 52 (2002); Sachs v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 414 (2002). On March 10, 2003, the Court ordered both parties to submit supplemental memoran-da addressing the changes in the Court’s EAJA caselaw since the submission of the original EAJA pleadings and the impact of those changes upon the outcome in this case.
“The Court has jurisdiction to award reasonable attorney fees and expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(F).” Cullens v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 234, 237 (2001) (en banc). The appellant’s EAJA application was filed within the 30-day EAJA application period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B) and satisfies the EAJA jurisdictional content requirements because the application contains the follow[227]*227ing: (1) A showing that, by virtue of the Court’s remand, the appellant is a prevailing party within the meaning of the EAJA; (2) a showing that he is a party eligible for an award under the EAJA because his net worth does not exceed $2,000,000; (3) an allegation that the position of the Secretary was not substantially justified; and (4) an itemized fee statement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), (1)(B), (2)(B); Thayer v. Principi 15 Vet.App. 204, 207 (2001).
As noted above, in order to be eligible for fees pursuant to the EAJA an applicant must show that he is a “prevailing party.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see Cullens, supra. Under the EAJA, “a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses ... incurred by that party in any civil action ... brought by or against the United States in any Court having jurisdiction of that action.... ” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Prevailing-party status requires either “the ultimate receipt of a benefit that was sought in bringing the litigation, i.e., the award of a benefit, or at a minimum, a court remand predicated upon administrative error.” Sumner, 15 Vet.App. at 264. In Sumner, the Court concluded that “a remand does not constitute ‘some relief on the merits’ unless that remand is predicated on administrative, error.” Id. The Court’s decision in Sumner expressly relied upon the holding and rationale of the Supreme Court in Buckhannon, supra.
The appellant argues in his supplemental memorandum that he is a prevailing party. Appellant’s Supplemental Memorandum (Suppl.Mem.) at 1. He also contends that “[i]n both pleadings, the Secretary conceded that the Appellant was a prevailing party and argued only that the Secretary was substantially justified.” Id. at 2. The appellant further asserts that “[a] concession of prevailing-party status is binding on the Secretary and cannot be re-litigated at this point.” Id. The appellant relies upon Flemming, supra, to support his contention that a concession of prevailing-party status is binding and may not be changed by the Secretary. Id. The Secretary does not address the appellant’s argument regarding being bound by an earlier concession of prevailing-party status in his supplemental memorandum because the Court requested supplemental memoranda from both parties simultaneously with no opportunity to respond to the other sides arguments. The Secretary contends in his supplemental memorandum that the appellant is not a prevailing party under current caselaw. The Court does not agree with the appellant’s characterization of Flem-ming as binding the Secretary to his previous concession of prevailing-party status. In Flemming, the Court does not address the issue of whether the Secretary is bound by. his concession of prevailing-party status. In Flemming, the entire discussion regarding the Secretary’s concession of prevailing-party status is as follows:
Upon closer examination, it is clear that the Court’s recognition of the appellant in Stillwell [v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 291 (1994),] as a prevailing party was based on the Secretary’s concession to that status, and on the apparent rule drawn from [Shalala v.] Schaefer [, 509 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993)], that a party prevailed by virtue of receiving a remand.
Flemming, 16 Vet.App. at 54. That observation was made in the context of the Court’s discussion of the factual circumstances . present in the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
Before the Court is the appellant’s application for payment of attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $4,637.02 pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The appellant submitted his EAJA application on October 16, 2000, after the Court, in a September 26, 2000, order, vacated a June 30,1999, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board or BVA). Based on the Board’s review of the appellant’s attorney fee agreement, the Board, in a June 1999 decision, found that the attorney was not eligible for direct payment of attorney fees from past-due benefits. The appellant and Secretary filed briefs before the Court in February and July 2000 respectively, and on September 14, 2000, the appellant filed an unopposed motion to vacate and set aside the Board decision for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Scates v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 62 (2000) (en banc) (per curiam). The Court’s order of September 26, 2000, vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the matter to the Board based on the appellant’s unopposed September 14, 2000, motion.
On February 8, 2002, the Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the appellant’s application for attorney fees pursuant to the EAJA. Halpern v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 416 (2002) (per curiam order). On December 12, 2002, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that this Court erred when it determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the appellant’s application for attorney fees pursuant to the EAJA. Halpern v. Principi, 313 F.3d 1364 (Fed.Cir.2002). The Federal Circuit then reversed the Court’s decision, and remanded the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id.
The Court notes that the appellant submitted his original EAJA application on October 16, 2000. The Secretary submitted a response to the appellant’s application on January 9, 2001. The appellant submitted a reply to the Secretary’s response on January 17, 2001. On May 29, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001), significantly changed prevailing-party jurisprudence. During the more than two years since the parties submitted their original EAJA pleadings, significant changes have occurred in this Court’s EAJA caselaw as well. See e.g. Sumner v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 256 (2001) (en banc); Flemming v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 52 (2002); Sachs v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 414 (2002). On March 10, 2003, the Court ordered both parties to submit supplemental memoran-da addressing the changes in the Court’s EAJA caselaw since the submission of the original EAJA pleadings and the impact of those changes upon the outcome in this case.
“The Court has jurisdiction to award reasonable attorney fees and expenses pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(F).” Cullens v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 234, 237 (2001) (en banc). The appellant’s EAJA application was filed within the 30-day EAJA application period set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B) and satisfies the EAJA jurisdictional content requirements because the application contains the follow[227]*227ing: (1) A showing that, by virtue of the Court’s remand, the appellant is a prevailing party within the meaning of the EAJA; (2) a showing that he is a party eligible for an award under the EAJA because his net worth does not exceed $2,000,000; (3) an allegation that the position of the Secretary was not substantially justified; and (4) an itemized fee statement. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), (1)(B), (2)(B); Thayer v. Principi 15 Vet.App. 204, 207 (2001).
As noted above, in order to be eligible for fees pursuant to the EAJA an applicant must show that he is a “prevailing party.” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A); see Cullens, supra. Under the EAJA, “a court shall award to a prevailing party other than the United States fees and other expenses ... incurred by that party in any civil action ... brought by or against the United States in any Court having jurisdiction of that action.... ” 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). Prevailing-party status requires either “the ultimate receipt of a benefit that was sought in bringing the litigation, i.e., the award of a benefit, or at a minimum, a court remand predicated upon administrative error.” Sumner, 15 Vet.App. at 264. In Sumner, the Court concluded that “a remand does not constitute ‘some relief on the merits’ unless that remand is predicated on administrative, error.” Id. The Court’s decision in Sumner expressly relied upon the holding and rationale of the Supreme Court in Buckhannon, supra.
The appellant argues in his supplemental memorandum that he is a prevailing party. Appellant’s Supplemental Memorandum (Suppl.Mem.) at 1. He also contends that “[i]n both pleadings, the Secretary conceded that the Appellant was a prevailing party and argued only that the Secretary was substantially justified.” Id. at 2. The appellant further asserts that “[a] concession of prevailing-party status is binding on the Secretary and cannot be re-litigated at this point.” Id. The appellant relies upon Flemming, supra, to support his contention that a concession of prevailing-party status is binding and may not be changed by the Secretary. Id. The Secretary does not address the appellant’s argument regarding being bound by an earlier concession of prevailing-party status in his supplemental memorandum because the Court requested supplemental memoranda from both parties simultaneously with no opportunity to respond to the other sides arguments. The Secretary contends in his supplemental memorandum that the appellant is not a prevailing party under current caselaw. The Court does not agree with the appellant’s characterization of Flem-ming as binding the Secretary to his previous concession of prevailing-party status. In Flemming, the Court does not address the issue of whether the Secretary is bound by. his concession of prevailing-party status. In Flemming, the entire discussion regarding the Secretary’s concession of prevailing-party status is as follows:
Upon closer examination, it is clear that the Court’s recognition of the appellant in Stillwell [v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 291 (1994),] as a prevailing party was based on the Secretary’s concession to that status, and on the apparent rule drawn from [Shalala v.] Schaefer [, 509 U.S. 292, 113 S.Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993)], that a party prevailed by virtue of receiving a remand.
Flemming, 16 Vet.App. at 54. That observation was made in the context of the Court’s discussion of the factual circumstances . present in the pre-Buckhannon case of Stillwell, and the effect of Sumner, supra, on prevailing-party status.
The Secretary in his January 9, 2001, response to the appellant’s EAJA application did not address whether the [228]*228appellant was a prevailing party, but rather, began his response with a substantial-justification argument. Even though the Secretary conceded prevailing-party status in his original response, the Court ordered supplemental briefing from the parties. The-Court holds that the Secretary’s concession as to prevailing-party status is not binding. See Swiney v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 65, 68 (2000). Clearly, when the Secretary conceded prevailing-party status in January 2001, he recognized that it was futile to dispute prevailing-party status under then current law. However, as the Court noted when it ordered supplemental briefing in this case, the legal landscape regarding prevailing party status has changed substantially in the aftermath of Buckhannon, supra.
On September 26, 2000, the Court, by order of the Clerk of the Court, granted the appellant’s unopposed motion to vacate and set aside the Board decision for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Scates, supra, and remanded the matter. The sole basis for the remand was due to the change in caselaw in Scates, which was issued during the pendency of the appeal. In Sachs, the Court held that “a remand on the merits that is based on the rule of retroactive application is not a remand predicated upon administrative error for purposes of EAJA.... Therefore, for purposes of EAJA fees and expenses, the appellant is not a prevailing party as a result of the Court’s decision [on the merits.]” Sachs, 15 Vet.App. at 416; see also Flemming, 16 Vet.App. at 54 (“[A]n appellant receiving a remand under the rule of retroactive application, that is, an appellant who receives a remand solely because of a change in caselaw during the pendency of his or her appeal, is not an EAJA prevailing party.”). The Court holds that the appellant is not a prevailing party, and therefore, his EAJA application must be denied. See Sachs and Flemming, supra.
Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the appellant’s EAJA application is DENIED.