EAJA Fee Calculator

Builds an Equal Access to Justice Act fee application for work before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims — the statutory rate under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) adjusted for cost of living, apportioned by work location as Parrott requires, with the filing deadline computed from the date judgment becomes non‑appealable.

1  Filing deadline

Judgment

2  Eligibility

Threshold requirements

3  Hourly rate

The cap is $125.00, set in March 1996 and adjustable for cost of living. The rate is $125 × (CPI‑U for the work period ÷ CPI‑U for March 1996). Add a rate line for each locale where work was performed.

Add a rate
Parrott v. Shulkin. Where a local CPI is available, the local series governs — not the national average and not Washington, D.C. Time must be apportioned to each office or location where the work was actually performed. In Parrott itself the failure to apportion cost counsel the entire adjustment and left him at the bare $125 rate, so this is worth getting right. The national U.S. city average is preloaded above only as a fallback where no local series exists.
Reference values — U.S. city average, CPI‑U (1982–84 = 100)

March 1996 base: 155.7. Recent monthly reference points: June 2025 = 322.561; June 2026 = 333.952. At June 2026 the national fallback rate is $125 × (333.952 ÷ 155.7) = $268.11.

Pull the figure for the actual work period, and the local series where one exists, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics before filing. Note that October and November 2025 values were not published because of the lapse in appropriations, which matters if the work period spans those months.

4  Time

Add a time entry
Paralegal time. Recoverable at prevailing market rates rather than at cost — Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (2008). Market rate is not the same as the adjusted attorney cap; enter the paralegal rate you can support for your market.

5  Expenses

Add an expense

6  Application total

Internal practice tool. Rates are computed from the statutory cap in 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A) and CPI‑U figures entered by the user; verify every CPI figure against the Bureau of Labor Statistics before filing. Whether a claimant is a prevailing party, whether the Secretary’s position was substantially justified, and whether particular hours are reasonable are contested questions decided on the record in each case. This tool does not compute those answers and is not a substitute for review of the docket.

Authority: 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) · Parrott v. Shulkin, 851 F.3d 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (local CPI; apportionment) · Bazalo v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 304 (1996) (eligibility elements) · Zuberi v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 541 (2006) (remand on administrative error confers prevailing party status) · Richlin Sec. Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571 (2008) (paralegal market rates) · Bly v. Shulkin, 883 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (deadline runs from non‑appealable judgment).