others all of the rating decisions impacted his ability to to obtain to you retroactive can looks plain that to me and a little more detail the part questions they remain and it had to do with the ratings for what because the statute cited in the briefs so you can receive you based on certain rating decisions rating percentages so anything that's remanded can have an impact on you so that's why you didn't appeal it separately  for thirty three years but in connection with the timeframe and obviously this isn't responsible for all of that life seems to me one of your arguments that you should have had more hearings that you were here to write well in regards to that your honor he had never  requested increase ratings as far as what the board had been duty and he requested initial ratings and several that there weren't any hearings were specifically we're going to stoop to that issue and that's why it was requesting a hearing on that couldn't have been a feel of that time or you didn't have to appeal that once but once assume that your we agree with you on the rights the point here why is this earlier decision still open w d because of the failure to submit a statement the case with the board alternately we me to have the state in the case issue having trouble understanding well with that your honor the similar case was issue have to appeal that separate t d i you portion at the time sort of like what's the point of all of this as i understand one of the arguments you using for saying he couldn't appeal to a certain appeal was that it was related say you should have been able to preserve that when you couldn't or you didn't should have had to appeal the t d i you portion because it was related or about to be affected by what happened on mimi and with respect to the other issue would we stand now on those other issues carol i mean where we stand now is he has the medical evidence to back up the fact that he has to get you and you know the medical rating decisions that haven't been disputed so the point being seventy six and as i pointed out in the briefs there's medical evidence that shows that he has the percentage necessary to get you back to seventy six but not of a deviation or the veterans court and adjudicated that's what's  studio you one hundred percent disability know you are one hundred percent disability is a scheduler rating one hundred percent means you don't need t d i you and in fact if you get one hundred percent you don't you can't pursue t d i you because you have one hundred percent hundred ninety three by the federal government for time for employment so it was not the remember question the ratings were completely separate completely separate issues from the elements that were final which is does he get t b i you before ninety four know because  no no didn't didn't the reach to the remainder involved ratings decisions with respect to those particular things but before ninety four yes back in that time and i think if there's no information or facts out there that deal with his medical condition before ninety four i mean we don't know how can we say with any certainty that that could absolutely not have been relevant to his making a case about whether or not he was uninformed because your art first he was employ grokked can't find work you demonstrate an inability to find work it's not really how injured you are it's related to dish the surgeon the inability to find work that's what makes them completely separate factual issues and right but it but let's assume that that's  that is correct if the court does not give a rule fifty four here you are and i think would be helpful to the to the court so what what case of ours says that the mere fact that you couldn't heal from the board to the veterans court means that you must appeal  you can't appeal it so you've got one of two things either it's final and you must appeal it or it's not final and you can't appeal so that and i think it would be helpful for the court to look at page five seventy eight of the joint appendix confusion or misunderstanding there's no question that indeed he had taken a previous appeal to the veterans court and took he and his attorney knew about it he was represented they made the strategic decision here's a final decision we're not going to pursue it chance that the issues as resolved remain and could give him more information or better information with regard to the issue that the other issues that message he should do one of two fix he should either go to the board and say please reopen and don a fine on this these are related we can go to the veterans court and say that the board made a mistake that divided these should be kept together and either one of those options are available in the same way that they're available fifty four b what would you can't do is when you either has to be one of two things either nothing's final to the board until it's file which would be problematic on the veterans who want to pursue half and pursue the other half on the man whatever it must be that the that they that the board can finalize elements send other alternative is everything has to catch at the board until it's all done and i think that is a disservice to the veterans and it does it is service to the veterans court which should be able to manage its docket and decide these things are appealable now and in fact it i something that that was appealable and that question of finality i submit can be viewed in that way and then allow the veterans court to have control over its docket as to what is final and what is not what does he  do you prove unemployability i mean you know for the most part i mean you could show that you went to try to get fifteen hundred jobs and you couldn't get it when you can show that your medical condition was such that you couldn't have done these jobs so i'm having a hard establishes that medically you could not be able to sit at a desk for eight hours a day that doesn't that answer the employability with respect to eight hours a day at a desk doesn't answer that question respectfully rocket because whatever his limits are and let's say it is ratings thirty percent but his room his physical limits you know when that from going to sort it out might be higher maybe or eighty percent he's got a lot of very severe specific limits if whatever that whatever he can do he has an obligation to go out and to try to find work with with whatever he can do and if there are it and maybe he can and i mean that expect that's that it can what finally and if you can job for four hours or less a day but it will be he can't find a job at macy's selling selling articles if he can't find a job at the church company that can let him stand that he can't yes he may he has to make some at her to go out and then he documents this and he provide condition not on his rating so the fact that the rating might go down and increase has nothing to do with i mean he is who is whether he's been under really or not so it's based on him going out with whatever physical liabilities yes that he had and pursuing s were connected you should have appealed that subject to the veterans court at that time and he and his attorney did not appeal that so even if later on he should have gone back to the boards that wait a minute you shouldn't to clear the t d i do piece of this an overly harsh rule to say that if a veteran has a certain disability that a certain rating it may actually do become employed and they work your pain they should be somehow punished for that you know just by the fact that  them but i do believe that in certain cases the veteran has a certain disability in their working regardless of that that that should necessarily negate the fact that they are you know should be given some sort of benefit  there were issues or facts in connection with the man that might have been useful or germane to the t d i you wish him do you lose on whether or not the veterans court aired in not hearing the appeal saying that you will require to file a separate appeal suggest that there was some relationship between the facts and that we may end and the t d i you wish if we just agree with that but you still have an argument that it wasn't a couple incumbent upon him to appeal