Case Explained: Savelkoul v. Driscoll

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-06 Docket: 1:23-CV-02792-GPG) The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees to Joshua Savelkoul under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The court held that Savelkoul did not qualify as a “prevailing party” because the district court’s remand of his Purple Heart application to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records was based on new evidence rather than an error in the agency’s administrative proceedings. Under *Buckhannon* and related precedent, a remand that merely instructs an agency to reconsider a claim with additional evidence does not constitute relief on the merits or materially alter the legal relationship between the parties without a judicial finding of agency error. Furthermore, the court determined that the government’s position was “substantially justified” because its initial denial and subsequent litigation stance were reasonable given the sparse and ambiguous medical records available at the time. The Army’s reliance on those records to conclude Savelkoul’s injury did not meet the statutory requirement for treatment by a medical officer satisfied the EAJA’s reasonableness standard, even though the position was later found to be incorrect after the introduction of new evidence. Consequently, Savelkoul is not entitled to recover his legal fees, and the district court’s judgment denying his motion remains in effect. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.