With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". fees, which the government opposed. The government contended that Wagner was not a prevailing party, and even if she were, the government was substantially justified in its position throughout the litigation; in either case, Wagner would not be awarded the fees she sought. We denied Wagner’s motion. In our Order, filed on August 26, 2008, we stated that in order to be a “prevailing party” under the EAJA, a party must establish that a federal court’s actions resulted in a “material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties” and that the alteration was “judicially sanctioned.” See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W.Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604-05, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001); Perez-Arellano v. Smith, 279 F.3d 791, 794 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). We determined that the Court’s actions

A: holding that buckhannon applies to the attorneys fees provision of the idea
B: holding that payment of eaja fees directly to the attorney also is consistent with the broad purpose for enacting the eaja  if the commissioners narrow position was adopted there would be a substantial risk that counsel for a successful plaintiff might not be paid which would have a chilling effect on the willingness of attorneys to represent indigent claimants in social security cases thus thwarting the primary purpose the eaja was enacted
C: holding that under the eaja a litigant did not incur fees when his former employer agreed to pay his legal fees and expenses
D: holding that the buckhannon rule governs an application for fees under the eaja
D.