10th Cir.

Savelkoul v. Driscoll

July 6, 2026 ·1:23-CV-02792-GPG ·Panel Decision ·Gregory A. Phillips · By Aisha Johnson

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of attorneys' fees to a former Army soldier seeking a Purple Heart under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The court held the soldier was not a prevailing party because the remand was based on new evidence rather than agency error, and the government's position was substantially justified.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / --:--

Background

Joshua Savelkoul, a U.S. Army soldier, was shot in the shoulder by a sniper in Iraq in two thousand and six. Fourteen years later, he applied for a Purple Heart, which the Army denied, stating his injury was not severe enough to require treatment by a medical officer. After a district court remanded the case for consideration of new medical evidence, the Army awarded him the Purple Heart. Savelkoul then sought attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, which the district court denied.

The court’s reasoning

The court affirmed the denial of fees on two grounds. First, Savelkoul was not a prevailing party because the district court’s remand was not based on any error in the Army’s administrative proceedings but rather on new evidence. Second, the government’s position was substantially justified because, although it initially erred, it based its reasonable position on the limited materials Savelkoul provided at the time.

What it means going forward

Military personnel seeking benefits must secure a judicial determination of error or a voluntary change in conduct to qualify as prevailing parties for fee awards. Government agencies are protected from fee liability when their initial denials are based on a reasonable interpretation of the record available at the time.