the veterans court even though in both cases and particularly in one the veterans court analysis seem quite detailed in terms of reviewing what the board did and explaining why they thought what it does short right so what exactly did they not do that you're saying they should have done had you done what they did and you you you and you i'm sure you know the weapon better than not they went through what the board did they went through the various analyses of the medical exam  in that case the legal error was that after the veterans forecast we viewed these individual factual findings it never conducted the review to determine whether the overall the ultimate factual finding of no service connection and that this underscores precedents of they've already taken apart the entire record and said why that record below doesn't stand so it just doesn't really make sense to me that they would then having said why all of this is inadequate and has to be a do  respect to the problematic determinations with respect to all of the pieces of evidence we find that the ultimate conclusion here was also clearly erroneous would that be sufficient to satisfy what you're saying with decision if the court has just one sentence because i think the court needs to look and say ok after weeks i mean this individual findings looking at the ultimate finding even if there are some questions that may remain will respect us or to refinding is it possible that would respect to the would do what we stuck to this one and i want to tell you i ok i appreciate what you're saying my problem is that we're supposed to assume that they implicitly did i mean if they they decided not i mean they were looking at the entire record they were looking at all of the pieces of the sub and some of that is the entire record and they follow up with sufficient obviously if they thought on this record that was the not to just decide the case they would have done that and then they said quite clearly we think therefore there is a need to reexamine the medical exam to do another medical exam perhaps whatever so implicitly in my view it seems to me that they did say they've concluded what you need to do the people at the record here and that conclusion your whole issue here is that it should have reversed or at least they should have considered all the stuff i read the statute the set it says hold on let the veterans court to hold unlawful and set aside or reversed that finding if the finding is clearly erroneous that means that they have two options which appears to be in their discretion if the finding is clearly erroneous they can reverse that or we vacate meaning which is what they did here they  compelled by the statute to reverse under the circumstances whether that's the issue because they did exactly what the statute that you're saying they violated gives them the discretion to do which is to either reverse or to t submission in this case the better in these two cases the veteran sports misinterpret that that standard but i think the the other part of my answer to the honest question is that also the in this precedence the deference scored in the in the case of saying that the legal problem here is that they should have reversed the supposed to say to me i thought you said earlier that your problem is that they didn't undertake the analysis they were required to do as a predicate to deciding whether or provision that you're hanging your hat on give them complete discretion as to whether or not to vacate for to reverse if the finding is clearly erroneous you want it's not it's not a complete respect i don't believe that this complete then also presented the ultimate factual finding that in that case that the legislature was motivated by racial and other political consideration when designing district boundaries and so the supreme court there really very detailed them sat on the reading of the record have been in the loge haven't examined the factual findings that refused to court the property value to the to positive medical opinions against action the evidence in those medical opinions that you now view was clearly had to reverse those two subsidiary findings and then the courts had to do the same type of analysis with respect to the ultimate factual finding it seems to me that the that the veterans four did exactly what you're saying i mean they looked at the at the finding of the board and the determination was that we were going to remap because we believe that the board failed to properly examine the the medical opinions or to review the medical opinions and the medical opinions themselves by themselves to provide us the grounds upon which we can make a decision that there was clear air i mean it under your argument that the veterans score would almost be required to do a clear analysis of every single case and determine whether it's going to reverse or not and it your argument seems to deprive the the the boer and the veterans for the ability to to remount when when it finds that the record is insufficient for the nerds and greens they said are where the record of otherwise inadequate or remand is appropriate here the lack of an adequate statement of reasons or bases frustrate judicial review and the failure to provide an adequate medical examination involves factual development i mean i appreciate that you're here and the arguments you're making but often we get these veterans cases and the veterans are asking under the duty to assist for a medical exam we've had cases where they say you should've done over the medical exam because the medical exam was inadequate and here the veterans court reach that result and they say indeed the you need a better medical exam and it seems to me i agree with a respect to below which it's also important to see what the court did before effective it made that statement and before the court they made that statement the courts that we cannot analyze the the board's factual findings asking for as you say is in fact doing all the things that the veterans court did here and new determined to do or you know adequacy in the evidence by which the benefit was you know had their obligation is to reverse to put an end to it not to remain and but just to decide in favor of the veteran because the the age is not  not than a reversal is proper because the only permissible view that evidence is country to the board finding no service connection that's that's a further question that is down the road so the precise legal question is the requirement for the veterans the spend on those i mean this court has limited jurisdiction to review the better scores of decisions and their jurisdiction is limited to review of the of really the legal interpretations interpretations of law by the board so i think the precise power of this  as we've heard i think a couple of times this morning the parents in this case would like to say that the standard should be as i say in the final substantive page and both of the movies of the practice court reached a definite conviction the borders  decision presents the issue to this court on fashion you would say that if the issue is whether the veterans court interpret that it's it's it's application or interpreted the statue correctly then we would have to or a section in the it would be depending on of course hypothetically depending on the nature of how the issue arose because the argument here is that very argument that there is a misinterpretation we would like that and so could you just situation their argument is because we view the evidence in a certain way there must have been an misinterpretation of the statute when really the question is really about the evidence that's one way to look at it i think the other way and i'm not sure that this was made clear in in the current events and that is that a decision comes with a decision that connection there is either a service connection or not and in this case as there was no service record is insufficient for me to decide whether there's whether the ultimate decision of service connection or no service connection was correct and in many cases you can remap and in order to further develop the record but you've got to answer the ultimate question whether chavez connection or not and and it's to that answer to what security erroneous standard applies now and what dark so the argument is that when you have a complete record that's taken years to develop it's already gone ping pong back and forth the veterans as done gone server open the three medical reports in this case and one of these cases and finally gets an appeal and it comes up is that a complete record upon which to wear the veterans court to say that the decision of service connection or not service connection was clearly rodents are not the answer is it could be and the standard is as is briefly earlier this morning is where the only permissible view of the evidence is contrary to the board decision the court will reverse it and in fact in both of these decisions the court  statement page jail eleven in the lotions a twelve in green the court says and our first to eleven and below reversal is the appropriate remedy when the only permissible view of the evidence is contrary to the board decision and they say but in this case this isn't that case we cannot do that in this case and the same thing with setting green policy wants us to reverse that but we can't do that because we find that we don't find that the only permissible view of the evidence is contrary to the board decision the ultimate holding of service connection so all old decisions both sections or decisions in this case considered that very question that you just raised ranch and both sections course decisions rule that in this case there wasn't only one permissible view of the evidence that would have allowed them to reverse rather they needed to use the alternate remedy agreement because of the nature of the pollock or for that analysis the event or sport it is determining whether there is more than one permissible view of the evidence isn't that is it not engaging in the analysis of whether the the actual the the final decision a service connection or not or no service connection whether that was correct or not yes it is so so at what point does a board ever say or does a court ever say i'm going to take the rector complex as a complete record that's before me i t the problem i'm having it just seems to me that in the lot of these cases it's extremely easy to say that the record is incomplete or that a doctor's opinion though the to includes the ability to reverse whether the better score is actually embracing appropriately the authority that was extended to it under the under the let me suggest a couple of answers to this i'm going to address sort of an easy one first fact in the amica they talk about the perception that vexes court isn't following its reversal of authority courts of appeals what is true is there a lot more remains but that's part of the system that's it's it's a carryover from that from the not adversarial proceedings that exist for the secretary you're going to have a lot of remains from the legislative change but we haven't heard here today is any articulation of a legal error in these particular cases these cases the court correctly identifies the standard for reversal and concludes that in are resolved and there really needs to be a point at which the the benefits which are not going to diminish the treasury that anyone would would notice are resolved here if it's clear as to how we should come out just you cited you could send it back for more and reasons but it's this is what shines through these two cases to me by now we  whether this is the way to do retract or is a difficult question on these facts because no one seems to me sorrow analysis by the veterans court and perhaps one could say as well as we're committed to review but these cases do not provide the vehicle by which this court we believe can interject itself into this question first of all as i think we were all here sitting around discussing the facts in j below that is based upon a review of the facts or the patient law to the facts then the answer would be no you couldn't review that you would only be limited to those situations in which a legal issue was present which th get that what i'm saying is that in instances where the where the veterans for remarriage as opposed to reverses would we ever had the authority to review those type of decisions to be i would say to the extent that the decision was based upon the review of the record as it was in this case aren't they all yet the only example i could think of your honor would be where the anything i say here today is obviously subject to the court's review in consideration and so clearly you are the decision makers so we are the decision makers when it comes to whether there's a hook or not and situations where the  opinion so i see what what the better score said what the question i'm asking you is that under under everything that's been said to us so far would we ever have the opportunity to review or do we ever have the authority  to review the issue of whether the veterans court has interpreted the stats correctly initialises where it says determined to remit and as opposed to  apple clearly that's not what this court to tell about where it says there's ambiguity in the in the in the rector below we're going to remain and in order to to develop the record further in adams this court held that that was an appropriate basis for the procedural posture of the case was much worse if you will than this in the sense that as mr adams satisfied the presumption for service connection and the reman was about a medical opinion which the secretary was relying upon  to overcome that presumption in the concern at the time which is why this court of jurisdiction was well in that situation where the only purpose for the reman would be to allow the secretary knight or another bite at the apple to come up with basically negative evidence that would be impermissible this court held well that isn't that what the opponents are arguing here well that's what this these cases represent you have one situation where you have to medical opinion as to say that their service connection and one medical opinion that has us is taken years and years to develop i got two doctors opinions i got them the benefit of the doubt step two i'm going to reverse and find that there is connection i'd like to respond and then respond based on the record as i know it not necessarily the answer to the answer some of that so i will your honor i will construe a question not so much of the facts of the los but as the hypothetical situation in which there are two medical opinions which clearly state that their service connection and there really isn't anything else in the record that would support negative finding a service connection and i mean that hypothetical situation i would expect the court next to a reverse i would expect that they would follow the standard that they are in this case and then green and and say that there is only one permissible view of the evidence in that case and it would be contrary to the board's holding that there was no service connection and they would simply reverse that and they have over the years in numerous cases going back the early days  hundred one when they reversed the holding because there wasn't any other possible view of the evidence what we're suggesting here though is despite the characterization of the evidence in the blueberries which we did not engage in because we do believe firmly that the kind of analysis being requested of this court is outside the jurisdiction of this court to consider bucked to the extent this court considered the entire record that was before the board in the back to square i believe this court would reach the same conclusion which is this is a lot more difficult question than i think it is when we have an individual who repeatedly attributes his psychotic breaks with reality to marital discord and over use of opiates and other drugs and then later you have these two thousand era medical opinions which attributed to service connection so there's a slight disconnect this isn't even one of those cases which the court often hears of talk about and which and maybe a little bit like mr green where there is no medical records at all for a long period time here m i'd like you i'm not interested in resolving the merits of the case or even reviewing the factors that's that's not our purpose the question is whether and that equipment legal question has been raised and i'm concerned that if we can't find it in this situation when channel four there's a rematch and part of the riemann as you need to develop the record further as a representative of the secretary my answer to is i would hope you would never be able to find because i would hope that the only cases that this court would sort of merit with the threshold jurisdictional question of can i go back to drain and went about the threshold question of jurisdiction i'm having a hard time seeing how this is different from mine because in contrast to the where we said they didn't point to any statute here or whether we even if we think the argument is wrong on the merits they have pointed to a statute that's quite progression they have articulated believe i understand the question your honor and my first answer was i was hoping would address that which is generally the legal question presented was whether the statute was not filed by me to sixty one  and i think that my reference to the decisions below was an initial attempt to demonstrate to the court that yes it was also to the extent there is a legal issue raised there doesn't appear to have been any identification of an error now in order to demonstrate  error below which created the legal issue was the directions courts perception that it didn't have the authority to do that to do the reversal i would suggest that in this case to the extent that is legal issue it does sound like similar in this case the veterans court recognizes that it could have reversed it but that on this evidence it didn't so to the extent this court was to say well the legal issues presented but there doesn't seem to have been any error here because the  proper standard that it should use this well the only setting that aside whether error was committed or not i mean we have we have a special issue that we're trying to resolve don't even get to the air part of the case to get to the marriage part of the case at was seventy two sixty one properly interpreted that that could be a make not in my hearing that you're kind of suggesting that yes we do have to have stiction no actually i don't because i think well i think you may have jurisdiction to say that think judge raina and i a clearly struggling with is we have to decide not just who wins and loses right whether or not we have to respect in the first and we are having a hard time seeing why we don't have at least just  decisions as as they are yes that would be a legal issue of course the problem in the briefing in this case is the briefing is all about the conclusion i mean i have i appreciate so so when we can't even get to discussing the conclusion until pollens to have a decision on the record in this case that issue doesn't go away if they go back and re manton do not prevail or if they go back and re man the secretary does something untoward and as negative evidence the record they can come back under joyce or i think that environment could have had an opportunity to come back and attack that record as well i don't mean you're agreeing with me there's no distinction i'm not sure i think that the analysis of the third  this court has dealt with the therapy in much more detail in cases of the environment so i would respectfully respond to that question and i think in those decisions including the more recent decisions from may in june than elling and shane prong three is typically the basis for this court to defer review of a non final decision and we would submit and both of these cases prong three would would not be met even if you were to hold that there is a legal issue straightforward reversal on the basis on this evidence then he is right to a finding of a service connection on this record without a permit for medical examinations and further proceedings before the regional be a office and before the board that right is going to be court should have decided this in the first instance reversed the board and give granted the benefits and that's what we decide it we haven't we can decide that you years from now when it comes back up but at that point t