inclusive may please the court in our briefs we provide three legal theories how this court can extend relief to ms klaus when it comes to our strongest argument though that the november two thousand and fifteen board vacate or has no lawful effect because it was not properly served on her attorney the secretary has no response in fact in their motion to remain and at least it's docket seventeen pages two and eight they concede that the vacate or decision is arguing to the veterans court that throughout this process and we've only provided evidence since two thousand and fifteen forward or throughout this appeal and throughout this claim the secretary has continually failed to serve us with notice so we can better at the veterans court we're asking and we're going to make two arguments we have the opportunity to reach the merits is that nine of the eleven compensation pension exams that were used to decide those claims were inadequate and that substantive relief will allow the court to send it back to the board to get us adequate exams as it stands now if this court affirms the better support for the veterans core issues a mandate we go back into the board with a closed record because our extension time passed we had no idea that that extension time was granted so the record is closed and we're going back into eleven inadequate exams nine of which are currently before the board and so we're in a position where we're now arguing before the board against nine inadequate exams we could have ren and extension of time we could request an extension if this court confirms the veterans court it goes back to the board we could request an extension of time given the lack of service and that would be up to the board to determine whether we stayed a good cause and i'm hopeful that they would do that but the simple fact remains is that if we are before the veterans court on the september two thousand and fifteen board decision we are able to directly challenge nine compensation and pension opinions as being time that you finally had notice that they would for a decision have been vacated and that's why you kept the appeals trying to understand this is a different procedural posture so we're trying to understand why the disappearance here when you're the one who asked for the relief and we're not you finally got it but then you want to proceed with the peels the few we had no knowledge of the board vacated decision we filed an appeal of the september two thousand and fifteen board decision on january thirteenth two thousand and sixteen at the point we filed that appeal of the final september two thousand and fifteen decision we had no awareness of this fifteen of them or two thousand fifty of a killer decision was out there the first i learned of that was when i got the r b a the record before the agency from the had requested because i didn't get the relief that that i had the opportunity to see for my client at the veterans court we had an appeal of a final decision before the veterans court and i could seek to remedy this i could ask the veterans court to say board and secretary please serve  clowes attorney as your flyer two hundred seventy one of four as you require two hundred fifty one of four as you own regulations at one of the three be one of the three f and one point five five to five d all require that you serve miss classes attorney that's what the first thing the second thing is we could have gotten nine of those opinions arguably would have had to persuade the court that they were inadequate but we could have had them sent back to get adequate medical opinions on the remaining issues that allows the board to make a decision based on adequate medical opinions as it stands now if this court affirms the veterans court issued its mandate the best relief that i can provide my client is to go out and pay for medical opinions that challenge each of those medical opinions put in by the board and i don't have to do that if i can convince the court which is i'm able to do that an argument that i can raise the court has frequently noticed that you can challenge the adequacy of a medical opinion before it that has jurisdiction and that's court of jurisdiction over a final board decision that had already been filed i don't think we need to appeal the vacated but to a certain extent i think it's arguable at least that when the secretary moved to dismiss our appeal of the september two thousand and fifteen decision by placing that vacate or into the record in arguing that it was depriving the court of jurisdiction that that gave the court the jurisdiction to at least look at it now and where the court can't reach that question unless they find that the how there was some jurisdiction i'm sorry the argument as to the court's jurisdiction over a vacated decision and the propriety of twenty point nine zero four in the first place but i don't believe that we need to get there because it's so clear that the board did not properly serve and still to this day has never  served counseled properly that not cured by delivering it to the last not addressed certainly the secretary did through the r b a but by that time the appeal had been filed and we were already before the veterans court so what do you think the standard is or lack of notice can result in a fine a decision the standard for the veterans court your honor i think the standard is is to look and see is was there proper notice if there is proper notice then i think that we're into the notice and timely manner that somehow results and nullifying order and what is your support for that what is the law that supports i'm sorry i don't understand the question you know i think that your argument is that because you didn't get idea that it has no lawful a fact because you didn't get notice where we're looking to in terms of veterans court precedent as we're looking to sort of rule or primarily and in some rouleau the veterans court said that once an appeal has been file on a final board decision once that notice of appeal is filed the veterans court has plenary jurisdiction over the case and the board cannot in another itself take it away certainly under rule four of the court's procedures the secretary is attorneys could have moved and before the veterans court they have that option we have the option for seeking reconsideration of a board decision and in that case just following up on dr phil's question i think the question is what what is the long that you can point to that shows to us that a vacated decision by the board has absolutely no legal effect until that they cater is properly served the claim i think we have i don't know that there's any direct case on point that says exactly that holding on to a certain extent we're asking this court to make that holding that if you do not properly serve of a cator decision that it does not deprive the veterans court of jurisdiction over the decision that they were trying to vacate when there's no case on point and so we're asking for that but i think if we look to those statutes certainly congress in fifty one of four and seventy one zero four require the secretary to provide a notice not only to that the  claimant but to the claimants representative at their last known address the secretary's own regulations require that and numerous places in terms of requiring that service and so i don't see how any document where there is a requirement to serve it can have any legal effect if it's not properly served on the attorney and i know you're injured rebuttable just really quickly the government read brief suggested in alternative way that if we really need to if we're concerned about the jurisdiction question we should remain and it down to the veterans court so that they could address it in the first instance because it wasn't actually addressed by them in the before because it wasn't really developed before so what do you think about that alternative suggestion by the government here to the extent that this court would remain to the veterans court to have them address the issue of the lawful effect of the board vacated decision being improperly served i think that that is largely correct that this court can remanded ask them to address it certainly we believe we raised it at the veterans court but even if we did not even if the court finds that we did not we did not forfeit or waive subject matter jurisdiction and so i think that that would be an acceptable remedy is to have the veterans court addressed that argument in the first place proceed in the notice of appeal that one out to the veterans court the board did not undertake the vacated decision in order to deprive it or in support of anything fact is that when the notice of appeal wind up we cater decision was already in place which i think supports that fine when one looks at cases involving notice the usual remedy for victims of improper notice or incomplete notice is extended lines to do something that puts the individual back in a position where  specifically i was looking for an instance where the court itself is responsible for making notice or not where a party is responsible for notifying the other side fails to do so but where the court fails to provide adequate notice of something and will seventy seven which  she had asked for new medical exams at that point she could have asked for new medical exams i understood council to be saying that something that was classed with life as new medical exams i think that's something request a court in the evidence that she wanted to put in previously i not aware of which counts that evidence goes to but if it went to one of the claims or she thinks there should be more medical examination and cetera it could result in a different outcome at the board level if it doesn't at the very least the results a complete record for the veterans court whereas under the current scenario ms klaus wants to proceed with an appeal on the merits for the veterans court without the evidence that she said she needed and told the board she needed so it's difficult to see why the veterans court would want to decide on the merits in this case because they're going to be looking at an appeal on the merits and then sitting next to it is flashing light from the record below that there was a request to submit more evidence than just been shunted aside for whatever reason and i think that that would raise questions that are of course my why we should proceed on a record that on litigation approach is incomplete there's something missing in the record i'm sorry with this class withdrawn request to supplement the record my understanding is but of course there are mechanisms in place and given the record here i don't think that there's any serious risk of not being able to proceed with bringing forth that you have it ends reopening the case an argument we're seeing on all elements of  her attorney with board they cater to sit ins since this appeal has been filed as we've noted in our proposed supplemental appendix they have severed benefits they have attempted to recoup benefits they have reinstated benefits and tried to claim fifty one thousand dollars and past due benefits all without serving her attorney and so to the extent that we could have added anything in this appeal prior to reaching the board's decision requires that the attorney be served with these documents they weren't they were not given to us they were sent to the wrong addresses the record clearly demonstrates that they were sent to a prior address of the firm just even since two thousand and fifteen and because of that in our belief set with a final decision before the veterans court an opportunity to ask the veterans court to tell the board to follow seventy one of four to follow fifty one of four to follow the three regulations that require service of the attorney and a serve notice to the attorney that in of itself is more relief then the court then the board has given right now as it stands right now this could go back on mandates to the board the board could issue its decision tonight all the benefits i mean never see a decision i have no confidence that i will see a decision and so i don't have any confidence that i can even timely appeal again to the veterans court and that is the remedy that we seek is an order to the court to either address as as was suggested earlier either address the question of whether a board vacate or improperly served deprives the court's jurisdiction or to tell the veterans court that they erred when they found that they lacked jurisdiction over a final board decision when there's been an improperly survey kater