Substantial Justification Issue By Government Left To Resolve On Remand.
The Ninth Circuit, in Wood v. Burwell, No. 14-15356 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2016) (published) reversed and remanded a district judge’s denial of attorney’s fees to a prevailing class plaintiff under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). Plaintiff represented class members who prevailed against the Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services about the Secretary’s approval of the Arizona Medicaid demonstration project, with the district judge earlier determining that the Secretary did not follow proper administrative procedures in coming to a decision. But, the district court denied plaintiff attorney’s fees under EAJA.
The Ninth Circuit reversed. It first determined that the plaintiff’s procedural win was a judicially-sanctioned material alteration in the legal relationship between the parties. After all, the Secretary was found to have not abided by important administrative procedures, such that an important procedural victory, even with a remand, can qualify plaintiffs as prevailing parties in the right circumstances.
That brought the federal appeals court to a more arcane issue of whether a remand without vacatur affects the plaintiff’s prevailing party status. Although indicating that it might in different circumstances, this nuance did not divest plaintiff from prevailing party status in this case.
So, the only issue left on remand to prevent plaintiff from obtaining fees is whether the government was substantially justified in taking the positions which it took.