In other words, defendant's view of the law is that until the government changes a PRSA local wage area designation, no plaintiff has a valid claim in this court for higher pay under an erroneous wage area designation theory. For this argument, defendant relies on Averi v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 127, 132-33 (1991), Anderson v. United States, 764 F.2d 849, 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and Todd, all of which are distinguishable from the instant case. In Averi, the United States Claims Court considered whether the PRSA was money-mandating for a particular back pay claim before it. 23 Cl. Ct. at 132-33.
COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge. Following our unpublished decision in George E. Schuenemeyer, III v. United States, 770 F.2d 177 (Fed. Cir. 1985), which reversed the decision of the United States Claims Court (Claims Court), 6 Cl.Ct. 97 (1984), petitioner filed an application for an award of costs and attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. ยง 2412. We grant the application.