William J. Kelly v. Nicholson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that government’s position was not substantially justified based solely on lack of justification for agency’s actions at administrative level
• concluding that “the [Veterans Affair]’s failure to consider all evidence and material of record before deciding a material issue on the merits” satisfied the “agency error” portion of Motorola
• concluding that when the Government ignored relevant evidence presented by the plaintiff at the agency level, the Government’s position was not substantially justified because “a failure to consider evidence of record cannot be substantially justified”
• noting that the core objective of EAJA is to remove financial deterrents from seeking review of “unjustified governmental action” (cita- tion omitted)
• noting that “outright reversal on the merits has been very rare” in the Veterans Court
• reversing and remanding denial of EAJA fees after an erroneous Agent Orange disability determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).