Grievance Administrator v. Mosley

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an appellant is not a “prevailing party” where a remand is caused by a change in law
• holding that voluntary agency remands due to intervening legislation and newly discovered evidence “provide[d] only the opportunity for further adjudication” rather than “at least some relief on the merits”
• holding that remand to consider new evidence does not confer prevailing-party status
• finding no prevailing-party status for remand based on the passage of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000)
• discussing how “[t]he HHS Secretary must return to the district court after the post-remand proceedings to allow the district court to enter a final judgment” when the district court retains jurisdiction
• discussing how a “sentence four remand is consistent with the holdings of Buckhannon and Brickwood because the unique statutory language of sentence four includes a judgment on the merits with any remand order”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).