Wood v. Burwell, No. 14-15356 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseIn 2012, the Wood plaintiffs, who were recipients of health coverage under Arizona's Medicaid demonstration project, filed suit against the Secretary challenging her approval of a new Arizona project that raised copayments for medical visits and medications and that permitted healthcare providers to refuse non-emergency services based on an inability to pay. At issue on appeal is whether the members of the class action were the prevailing parties for purposes of attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. 2412. The court applied the factors in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., holding that under the EAJA, the Wood plaintiffs are the prevailing party in their procedural Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A), challenge against the Secretary. The court noted that the dispositive question is not whether the plaintiff ultimately obtained some form of substantive relief, but rather whether there is a lasting alteration in the legal relationship between the parties. The court concluded that there was a material alteration in the legal relationship of the parties, to the benefit of the Wood plaintiffs. Finally, the court concluded that the retention of jurisdiction for practical and equitable reasons did not undermine the reality that the Wood plaintiffs were a prevailing party. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded to the district court to consider whether the government’s position was “substantially justified” under the EAJA.
Court Description: Equal Access to Justice Act. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”); held that plaintiffs, who were members of a class action suit against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, were entitled to “prevailing party” status; and remanded to the district court to consider whether the government’s position was “substantially justified” under EAJA. Plaintiffs were recipients of health coverage under an Arizona Medicaid demonstration project, and they challenged the Secretary’s approval of a new Arizona 2011–2016 demonstration project. The panel applied the factors set out in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604-05 (2001), and held that plaintiffs were the “prevailing parties” for the purpose of attorneys’ fees under EAJA. The panel held that the dispositive question was not whether the plaintiffs ultimately obtained some form of substantive relief, but rather whether there was a lasting alteration in the legal relationship of the parties. The panel concluded that there was a material alteration in the legal relationship of the parties, to the benefit of plaintiffs. The panel further held that although a district court’s decision to remand without vacatur might weigh against awarding WOOD V. BURWELL 3 prevailing party status in some cases, it did not do so in this case, and the district court’s retention of jurisdiction for practical and equitable reasons did not undermine the reality that plaintiffs were a prevailing party.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.