phrase the bedrooms children as used in a provision that is referred to in fifty one twenty one capital a so the argument is that we don't need to interpret children because there is that definition of  etc what is your view is to why that definition doesn't control because that definition pertains to the use of the term child as it relates to the award of benefits either additional benefits for the veteran or benefits independently from for the child after the veteran dies this statute is a how do we know that i mean is there anything in the language that says that is there some limiting cross reference how do we know that i'm not sure that there is any way to discern that from either the text of the statute i want to one or as for  or for that matter from the text of fifty one twenty one lowercase however the fact is is that when congress wrote fifty one twenty one lowercase and the congress used a specific term in the third category of qualified survivors of dependent children which evidences an intent upon congress and expressly to this court a clear understanding of that inten it simply in this context because there were three children i the distinction here is the way in which congress used the phrasing of the veterans children versus there were only one dependent parent alive it would clearly say that parents includes one single parent so in that regard the veterans children include every child which brings us back to the definition and one i want the word child right well i think it only does if that definition is relevant to the determination as to substitution and i'm context indicates otherwise words importing the singular including applied to several persons and i don't see that as a barrier here because that is why i seem to be  in your pre and looking of page twelve yes but that that distinction is in the context of this case and in the context of what fifty one twenty one lowercase a does the function of fifty one twenty one lowercase a is to allow for a class of individuals identified by congress to step into the shoes of that room and under this lowercase a file a new claim on their own in their own behalf versus under fifty one how do your chemical fit in that category i'm sorry how do your clients fit in that category because they are in the class of the veterans children whether singular or plural without it we're going or without regard or need in the context of what you're doing under fifty one twenty one lowerca to collect or to attempt to recover benefits that were due and owing the veteran it death and they minor child or a dependent child is just as capable of that's doing the have as an adult but what they do not do is to express lee exclude the adult children and the government and the veterans for have by inference decided that the phrase veterans children except that you are the qualifier and want to want one is to look at the context of the statute and in this case the context of the statute involved is to if you will designate representatives to act on the veterans behalf after the veterans debt and there is no reason you don't think it's to designate beneficiaries well they do not become beneficiaries of unless they succeed and that's the important benefits are claimed i believe that they certainly have to yes under fifty one twenty one if this court interprets the phrase the veterans children to include adult children under the existing case law and interpretation of fifty one twenty one lower case say they could not they would be expressly excluded and that's the point of reading fifty one twenty one lower case a as a statute that xclusive certain of the veterans children i e the adult children but when congress amended the statute it did so in order to allow the children to step in substitute and see the claim through to its its completion but i fear that that congress intended for the children who were not eligible for accrued benefits to become eligible that that is correct or are well that your your interpretation leads to that scenario if we if we have stepped your argument then we have to separate the statute also changed who is intitled to crude benefits and i just don't read the statute that way i respectfully honor your your looking at the two steps used as though they were what fifty one twenty one capitol eight is the substitution question anything in another itself other than to provide definitions of terms that are used in other sections right correct so you're saying that fifty one twenty one is an exception i other rule that we would normally apply was all if definitions apply i'm suggesting that fifty one twenty one lower case a must be looked at through the lens of what it does and it provides a two step process post death of a veteran when there is an assertion that there are benefits that are due and unpaid and they those benefits are  not benefits where there is necessarily a determination of entitlement but in fact a pending appeal right or plain for entitlement and that claim under fifty one twenty one capital a has to be continued by some up prior to the adoption of fifty one twenty one capital aid the veterans claim died with of that or in accrued benefit beneficiaries potential beneficiaries had to start a new they had to go all the way back to the regional office and start the claim all over again at a can i just ask you describe the clarification fifty one twenty one to the phrases upon the death of  children this debate we've been having about whether it's child or children or that there's a difference you would agree would you not that as judge wallop pointed out if you only have if you don't have a spouse and you have one child you would say that he would be covered and then you don't we just see so even though as a child and not children that would be you know to get to the dependent parent and it just might not you would not reach that you would not reach the dependent bears and in fact there is a nother provision the phrase the veterans children and not use the phrase the dependent the veterans dependent children as congress clearly did in the next say subsection or let's say the word in be was not the vet said th that definition doesn't apply due to see because that talks about parents and not parent right that would be correct but because in c t congress express defined the term of child quote for the purposes of this title meaning all of title thirty eight and then clues section fifty one twenty one a section at issue here with the phrase can i ask you kind of a sideshow question general which is just as a practical matter what's happening to these benefits my recollection is that this veteran one benefits back to a speck of dating to a certain date but were still there just skewed over how far that date with how far back that they were that's that's correct and is he given his unfortunate death in the interim is he still going to get or has he gotten the benefit i mean there was no dispute he was entitled to certain benefits backdating to a certain date that's right is if that is that part of the case that was still open and it's death and if so does that mean that he doesn't get the thing that that no that's not my understanding ok and two to dig a little bit into the background reads here my recollection is similar to yours you are that this veteran was found in two thousand and seven to a service connection dating back to two thousand and three and the way that works based on my understanding is that that person would then be getting the benefits he then appealed that decision and sought an earlier effective date which after a number of remains even before it got to this court ultimately came to this court in two thousand and sixteen this court remained did just that issue of the benefits going back so even though the case may still be open that he's not forfeiting upon his death that's got some back that stuff coming that it's affected by the that's right and just just to finish the thought you know if that is an issue that this court addressed in in young and i think we can all agree that it's an unfortunate situation where there's and when there's a problem claim the federal assets  well that's an issue that the veterans court address if i had i think i understand your honour's question probably obviously correct me if i'm if i get it wrong but it's an issue that veterans court dealt with below in this case and it also cited by cross reference to one of this court's decision and national organization veterans advocate so it's in the record the statute explicitly says that the claimants claim the beneficiaries accrue upon quote  upon the death of the veteran so that with this court discuss the national organization of veterans advocates and what the c b c discussed below in this case when it was the argument is that the is the operative date is the date on which one small a and then allow that claim to continue it says that if your accrued benefits beneficiary you can do the same presumptions apply in favor of veteran apply in favor of the veteran's dependent children it you know i think i think that's an open question it's i don't think that's an issue that's been explicitly decided they're obviously not the veteran but they are  statute is a proclaim a statute to the extent that they fit within the statute they would be the object of that of the of the the pro benefit aim of that statute the difference here is you're dealing with adult children i know that's where i'm going but we would it would we would explicitly it respectfully excuse me disagree with with one of the points that opponents counsel made in his remarks which is he said that the the statute is not any bill children we respectfully disagree with that because of the definitional provision of the statute when i want to sub for explicitly defines child as a minor child and i should add that that definition suck for includes one explicit exclusion which is chapter nineteen which deals with life insurance benefits if you're anticipating what i'm what my my question which is when you have an adult child because because congress clearly has some interest in protecting those dependent children and placing them in a position of warship right then and it two are the same kind of three categories of dependents for which the veteran in life could get additional additional benefits for having it for having to dependably their spouse or child or any man's i think that on the one that i know from personal experience it's a it's a it's it allows a child to use continues to be dependent on his or her parents because they're going to school at some point was added to go ok they don't have to be undertaken to be over eighteen if they're still benefits clearly let's say they don't want to substitute instead they want to just go off and far and you claim would they be able to do that no they would not but only for the scene reasons that they're not eligible beneficiaries to substitute  and actually just with the point that i was about to make myself which is that the substitution statute fifty one twenty one capital pay twice cross references the definition of who counts as an accrued benefits make a claim under the statute quote shall be determined in accordance with section fifty one twenty one of this title and the reason that's relevant to your question your honor it's cost the point here is that fifty one twenty one capital a  change procedurally the process for someone who isn't eligible beneficiary just step into the shoes of the federal claim that previously they had to go back and start a new claim fifty one twenty yet twenty one a made it makes it possible for that person rather than having to go back and start a new claim just stepped right into the shoes of the veteran and continue the veteran's claim but it does not change the definition of who counts as a as an old will claim and it doesn't change the definition of the substance and so if someone was an eligible beneficiary presumably they would be able to do it either well they could start a new claim although you know clearly why would you want to if you could continue it there in time or they could continue the veteran's claim but as a nonpolitical beneficiar all have to deep take a deep breath if we're talking about congressional one tent but it seems more logical think not doesn't at that if congress is just what time is not writing want to watch their writing this provision and they putting in the word dependent for parents the same people doing that would if they intended to only can include dependent children likely but the same word in their right it will hear i think i can clear up some confusion there statute one hundred one this is five sets next summer after a trial defines parent but doesn't have the same type of dependence limitation there actually is a definite separate definition of dependent parents and one of two so in this is exactly what the federa if congress had not added a dependent in front of parent it would have been using the one one five definition which is which is all all parents and in that same moniker in front of shop in child  you know if i'd like to clarify something that the government said maybe i misheard what the government said but in this case mr so gigs benefit will be forfeited if there is no substitution kids appeal is claim will die with him and there will be no recovery and assuming for the moment that there is an entitlement to those benefits those benefits will  accrue to the benefit of the government because they will not be ordered and obligated yet no i maybe i'm thinking about something else maybe it was judged do you disagree that what he said about my question about the benefits that everybody date and this court order that it be returned to the board for another consideration of whether or not there was or wasn't entitled and that's where the substitution in capital a becomes different from the lower case a because it allows the substitute appellant not to have to go back to the beginning but then simply pick up where the case was at the top of that and that seems to me to get to the salient purpose or the salient difference between the definition and one of the one and it's used in title thirty eight vs the statute that was created by congress that dealt with how you recover those benefits and identify within that statute clearly a difference between the veterans children and the veterans dependent parents and that should allow for m