a ringing in the ears can be raided separately and in other words the veterans court determined based upon its own medical judgment ignoring the medical judgment of the secretary so a person is paralyzed in the in the in the right side and has a speech impediment from a two is that one disability has that one disability multiple times lately that that the initial incident the stroke is the underlying cause of the disease that can give rise to different disabilities disabilities are different from from disease and the i think there is a reason why this this case can be confusing as everybody discusses tinnitus as the result of disability or the fact and as i was saying i think that's what leads to to the confusion based on the definition i think it is it's both it's both at least medically this is a disease and the disability because disability come in is a disability because of the symptom or because of the disease the regulation already said disability arising from a single disease and the question is what does that mean that's four twenty five b what does that mean single disease entity to that what single disease entity means then is that the way we should interpret yes your honor to be only one disease or one symptom the correct one candidate is in this instance the symptom and should not be considered this is let me ask you this question and i understand it sort not in any of the documentation that i my understanding of the way that you made it work big time the documents cited in the a regulation in general counsel opinion is that people probably don't experience the only experience left ear and sometimes you hear it in right here but really you're not hearing it either here it's just a new way it seems to me that one of the problems in this case is that this construct and this sort of goes to the questions about the jury and good just bears who are asking different parts of the body and i take it in that setting even though it's only one three bro incident the fact that it has effects perceived or real real in the case of stroke would converted to disability in his exam back right the crowd but what we seem to be saying with respect to tenet us is even though it's one incident a central nervous system problem and the  manifestations are perceived as being in two different parts of the body both ears we can treat that differently from the stroke case because the perception isn't real is that the notion i mean the idea of it strikes me as a thin distinction which isn't really very well grounded in and when you think about it in the way and actually works i understand the court's concern but i think the main difference between the strike situation and this situation is that in the stroke situation at least the examples articulated in the regulation are very clear examples of difference of fact so some kind of paralysis on one side where each defect a evidence probably not actually originated in one year or the other for probably not impairing when you're more than me and what the i'm going to be different i'm sure going to be originating in one year doesn't strike me as really the test right because suppose what you have is the problem in the brain which produces deafness in one ear or if the problem is serious enough deafness in both ears is the same part of the brain that's that's got the problem same time which means that when you get to that the whole purpose of that of the schedule it's not affecting your ability to work anymore and if you hear it in your radio or as it is if you're hearing in your last years they think the fundamental difference separate disability that independently affect one's ability to work but i think the overarching principle that isn't that important to remember is that all of these determinations as to what kind of a disease tenet says and what how it should be evaluated and what kind of medical evidence we should rely on these are all questions that are delegated to the secretary to answer and what the veterans court here has done is completely usurp the role of the secretary and decided for itself what a disability is and why should be duly and that is exactly what the veterans court is prohibited from doing and it should have years is ten percent right correct and under the port twenty five regulation the single disease enemy doesn't limit the secretary of the courts ability to say what should be a single question concerning when it becomes a disability the disease tended to this according to the secretary under his regulation only becomes a disability when the frequency of its occurrence is recurring now there may trauma to one ear in the military situation it typically happens when one puts a rifle to one's head to pull the trigger with your head close to the rifle and then  construe this regulation to mean there is an exception in diagnostic code sixty to sixty consistent with what's required four point two five b and that exception just as it does in sixty two zero seven it makes an exception and says no there will be one rating for tenets this is not a complex case this is a two word regulation texas recur unless the court disabilities even from a single disease entity that's contrary to to to know multiple disabilities but we're not dealing with no two here because of the effective date to i understand that correctly i discourage so we're told that this case is sort of a lead case with fifty or one hundred behind it so we're not going to satellite issue for whether there's a conflict between no so the court of appeals for veterans claims look at this two word regulation in light of four point two five and particularly when the same regulation diagnostic code sixty two zero seven demonstrates secretary knew full well how took limit this to one ten percent rate and if he chose to do so elected not to do so the secretary simply obligated to follow his regulation and his judicial review that determination as to particular disease is whether the manifestations of those diseases constitute multiple disabilities or only a single disability that may have more know but i've my question really is what whether it has the secretary actually turned away from the regulation or has the secretary simply left the regulation an opening for the secretary to make a determination as to whether there are multiple disabilities in a particular case having said in the regulation these are the rules i'm going to follow but as i follow these rules i'm going to apply them by making terminations a multiple discipline abilities and in a particular instance or not that doesn't seem to be reason and that the veterans court should have deferred even though the the regulation change doesn't come until two thousand reach to defer to the interpretation articulated in that change because it was merely a clarification