Case Explained: GREENIDGE v. COLLINS

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Filed: 2026-06-05 The federal-circuit reversed the Veterans Court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The court held that Marcos Greenidge qualifies as a “prevailing party” under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), despite the Veterans Court’s dismissal of his underlying appeal rather than issuing a remand order. The court applied the Supreme Court’s touchstone standard for prevailing party status: whether there has been a “material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties in a manner which Congress sought to promote in the fee statute.” The Federal Circuit distinguished this case from prior precedents where prevailing party status was denied because those cases involved discretionary remands or dismissals that did not reach the merits of the appeal. Here, Greenidge’s appeal specifically challenged the Board of Veterans’ Appeals for acting without jurisdiction by issuing an adverse decision before a Notice of Disagreement was filed. The court found that the Veterans Court’s vacatur of this ultra vires (beyond authority) Board decision and its dismissal of the appeal constituted a material alteration of the legal relationship because it removed a binding, adverse judgment that Greenidge had successfully challenged on the merits of his jurisdictional claim. Consequently, the government’s position in maintaining the Board’s unauthorized decision was not substantially justified, entitling Greenidge to fees. The practical consequence is that the Veterans Court must now reconsider Greenidge’s application for attorneys’ fees under the EAJA, recognizing him as a prevailing party based on the vacatur of the Board’s jurisdictional error. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.