Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): understanding that the “EAJA is a partial waiver of sovereign immunity, and it must be strictly construed in the government’s favor.” Tex. Food Indus. Ass’n v. USDA, 81 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir.1996) (citation omitted). B. Analysis 1. Murkeldove and the Vinning Plaintiffs “incurred” attorney’s fees as contemplated by the EAJA. In order to receive an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to the EAJA: (1) the claimant must be a “prevailing party,” (2) the claimant must “incur” attorney’s fees, (3) the government’s position must not have been “substantially justified,” and (4) “special circumstances” cannot render an award of fees unjust. 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A). The district court acknowledged that Murkeldove and each of the Vinning Plaintiffs is a “prevailing party” fo 1583 (Fed.Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>)). Against this framework, we examined cases 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that incurred within the meaning of the eaja requires an express or implied arrangement that the fee will be paid over to a legal representative (B) holding that attorney fees are incurred only when there is an express or implied agreement that the fee award will be paid over to the legal representative (C) holding that a cause of action based on eaja will be deemed to have survived the death of the aggrieved party and  the personal representative of the deceased partys estate or any other appropriate person may be substituted as the prevailing party to whom payment of an eaja award may be made (D) holding that where a contract for legal services fails to expressly provide for the amount of the fee a reasonable fee is implied (E) holding that the prosecution of an equitable adjustment claim before a contracting officer was not a civil action within the meaning of the eaja
Output (English): holding that the prosecution of an equitable adjustment claim before a contracting officer was not a civil action within the meaning of the eaja