the united states court of appeals for the federal circuit is now open and in session god save the united states and  was a claim to reopen for both post traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia put another way your honor the request for service connection for post traumatic stress disorder the scope of that request included service connection for twelve request to reopen the post traumatic stress disorder claim when looking all the at all of the evidence of record as required by seven hundred and ten for a sympathetic with your honor it was evident that mr murphy was claiming also requests to evidence at that time your honor where he was only diagnosed with get the french you look to his notice of disagreement where he talked about both conditions and then very clearly in his v a no i state that he was one hundred percent service connection for what became of his life clear to everyone that mr murphy is also very interested in reopening and having consideration for schizophrenia claim i'm just trying to understand what the way to get there and looking at the two thousand and twelve submission especially in the context of all the other prior requests to reopen where multiple times there were requests to reopen both   fact remains the same that in those line of cases the v a was required to not just look at that one single piece of paper as the a b c did here what the v a was required to look at that taking a step back looking at what was requested an understanding that severely mentally disabled veterans don't don't understand that there really understand what their psychological selection is and don't looking to that single piece of paper and so we believe that that bolsters our argument that he used the wrong rule which is a question of law that this court would have jurisdiction to to resolve  asking you is what is what is it about turn of the holding that makes it something that you can challenge here at the federal circuit is that the veterans court limited their review of the scope of mr murphy's claim to solely what was on that single piece of paper and if this court holds that sympathetically reviewing the reviewing the altar and holding as opposed to it being a matter of fact and i disagree with you because the  saying in response the judge can we review the alternative holding as a matter of legal question as opposed to a back question and i was simply saying to you i disagreed with you on that well looking to that part of the government but your honor there the government is arguing that although they do have a duty to sympathetically repeat review process they pleading it doesn't mean that mr murphy's requests reopen necessarily encompasses other mental health condition that is incorrect as a matter of law your honor it does necessarily include other mental health conditions and it includes that because of the underlying purpose of this entire veteran's law system which is to simply i think we review growth they veterans claims and submissions and i hear that my time is up your honor if there are no further questions we will eight my understanding is one of mr murphy contentions is that that evidence was never really addressed and explore condition do you think really in that context the only reasonable reading about would be that he can do reopen bo and we respectfully request that it does the alternative holding is merely couched as a factual finding but at the end of the day your honor the c b c is not reading the submissions sympathetically and that legal error mr murphy does not have to use  words and as the secretary just noted and your honor just asked if mr murphy had used the word cite for different letters instead of post traumatic stress disorder his claim would have