Randolph Gurley sought EAJA fees after the Veterans Court granted a joint motion to remand part of his appeal concerning an increased rating for a left knee disability. The remand was entered so that the knee-rating issue could be considered together with two related claims that the Board had already remanded: secondary service connection for a psychiatric disorder and TDIU. Gurley argued that the intertwined nature of the claims meant the remand should count as success on the merits for EAJA purposes.

The Federal Circuit rejected that argument. Relying on its prior EAJA cases, the court explained that a remand can confer prevailing-party status only when it is based on administrative error. Here, the record showed that the remand rested on judicial economy and avoidance of piecemeal litigation, not on any determination that VA or the Board committed error in failing to remand the knee claim with the others. Because the Veterans Court did not retain jurisdiction and the remand was not predicated on agency error, Gurley was not a prevailing party under EAJA.

The decision is important because it draws a clear line between remands that are merits-based or error-based and remands entered for procedural efficiency. That distinction controls whether a veteran may recover EAJA fees after a remand from the Veterans Court.

Under EAJA, a claimant is a prevailing party after a remand only when the remand is explicitly or implicitly predicated on administrative error; a remand based solely on judicial economy or avoidance of piecemeal litigation does not qualify.

A remand is not enough for EAJA fees. Counsel should identify and preserve evidence that the remand was granted because of VA or Board error, not merely because claims were intertwined or better handled together.

Gurley provides a practical EAJA boundary rule for Veterans Court practice. It helps distinguish fee-generating remands from procedural remands and is useful when defending or opposing EAJA applications after a joint motion to remand.

Treating any Veterans Court remand as automatic EAJA success without showing that the remand was based on agency error.

A veteran obtains a joint remand because several issues are intertwined and the court wants them adjudicated together. If the remand order and motion cite only judicial economy, EAJA fees are not available under Gurley unless the record also shows administrative error.

Use Gurley to oppose EAJA applications where the remand was procedural, consensual, or based on finality concerns rather than a recognized agency mistake. It is also useful to frame fee requests by emphasizing explicit Board or VA error in the remand basis.

Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., Former Employees of Motorola Ceramic Products v. United States, Halpern v. Principi, Kelly v. Nicholson, Davis v. Nicholson, Vaughn v. Principi, Akers v. Nicholson