Stinson v. Collins is a full Court (en banc) decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims dealing with an Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) application — the process by which a veteran who prevails against VA in court can ask to have the government reimburse reasonable attorney fees. The case had a complicated procedural history: a three-judge panel decided it in November 2025, the Secretary asked for reconsideration, and the full Court then withdrew that panel decision and issued this one in its place.
The Court says the case looked complicated but wasn't: "we find that the matter rests on clear reasoning from the Federal Circuit that faults the Board for an error it made when denying service connection." Because the Federal Circuit had already concluded the Board made a legal error in the underlying denial of Mr. Stinson's service-connection claim (which involved a skin condition, later diagnosed as a rare cancer, that began with a rash noted in his service treatment records), the Court held that "the veteran must be eligible to receive an EAJA award for his appellate victory."
The decision also notes that while this case was pending, the Federal Circuit decided Greenidge v. Collins, a separate 2026 case about prevailing-party status for EAJA purposes. The Court says it considered Greenidge's guidance but did not find it "dispositive of the dispute presented here" — meaning Stinson sets its own rule for this particular fact pattern rather than simply applying Greenidge wholesale.
The source text does not give an effective date for this ruling, does not say whether it is retroactive to already-filed or already-denied EAJA applications, and does not specify a dollar amount or fee schedule. It also does not address disability ratings, presumptions, or effective dates for benefits — this is strictly about attorney-fee eligibility tied to a court victory, not about the size or scope of the underlying disability award itself.
If you are a veteran with a pending disability claim, this decision does not change your claim's rating criteria or evidence requirements; it only matters if you (or your attorney) already won a Board error at the Federal Circuit or CAVC and are weighing whether to file an EAJA fee application, in which case you should discuss this decision with your representing attorney before any EAJA filing deadline.
Need a deeper analysis?
Our AI analyzes your specific situation against thousands of BVA decisions.
Analyze Your Claim Free