of the Appeals Notice indicates that “[a]n attorney-at-law or an accredited agent may also represent” the claimant before the VA or Board, and specifically notifies the claimant where she may inquire regarding similar legal representation before the court. Thus, the Appeals Notice does refer to the issue of representation before the court, even though it is not required by statute. Additionally, the notice sought by Cummings regarding the EAJA’s attorney fees provision might be misleading. Because the government’s position has been found to have been “substantially justified” under the EAJA even when the government has lost on appeal, such a notice might give a claimant false hope that her attorney fees would be paid by the VA. See, e.g., Felton v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 276 (1994) (<HOLDING>); see also Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 652,
holding that if a decision below is correct it will not be disturbed on appeal even though the lower court relied upon wrong reasons holding that views expressed by other courts on the merits and in particular a string of losses together with the actual merits of the governments litigating position are central to issue of whether position was substantially justified holding that a sentence was based on a mandatory statutory minimum sentence even though it was lowered under another statute holding that the yas position was substantially justified even though the regulation on which it relied was invalidated as exceeding its statutory authority holding that even though the complaint was dismissed without prejudice as a sanction for misconduct and even though the order of dismissal was therefore not an adjudication on the merits the defendants were nevertheless properly considered the prevailing party for purposes of attorneys fees