the fact that at the time or later in two thousand and ten that they decided to treat her request that they looking down and i gather she had some additional medical records notice a disagreement to the two thousand and seven decision denying the claim part stomach problems and specifying that she was appealing audition to claim under seventy one to five the only thing that the v a could have done   if you are right on that the initial claim included i b s either explicitly or implicitly but if the initial claim did not include i d s and ideas came into the ca only when she came back with her second motion for reconsideration and said i want to raise ideas and they decided to treat them separately if not does a separate clean point then i think that would be clear that those are two separate ok ok but doesn't that present us with the basic factual disputes that we're struggling to get to try to reconcile or whether or not i b s is in fact closely enough related to stomach problems to be encompassed within the original question and i don't see that the board or the easy a or the court for that matter has answered that question lucidly and if that's true how can we decide this case because we're presented with the dual choices of the they're saying yes of course if it was part of the original claim then she's right she shouldn't be treated as being having raised a but i didn't read this is saying that the scope of the initial claim includes i b s as i read this they're saying well the without may be completely resolving this question which leaves this up in the air as saying that th was a diagnosis of i d s that there was in january two thousand and ten there's a specific diagnosis of i b s but she raises the i b s in two thousand and two i b s is definitely in the cage with the question the critical question isn't  whether or not ideas which in the case from the word go and i don't see them answering that question well if they didn't specifically answer here in our position is they did you only reason why they refuse clear that a veteran would never have to violence like and notice a disagreement to a ratings it's a second rating decision to sign denying this same claim that's currently on appeal and i think we address in our reply brief how this situation is distinguishable from those from those cases that the government really know in terms of bifurcation i think is there really isn't anything inherently wrong with bif board level let's say in which if the board says well you know there are there are quite different considerations with respect to these multiple claims that are before us when they're poor going to treat them separately as long as the veteran isn't prejudiced by use or being required to file another nod with respect to claims that have already been raised and to which there is already been a nod as which is the way you see this case or that it doesn't result in a change in the timing of the days from which the benefits will flow measure the to put but there's nothing inherently wrong with saying well even the truth is it's a separate but will keep the original start da the notice of disagreement this court case likely that the scope of the claim is a factual determination that this court has and will exercise jurisdiction over questions of the scope of the notice a disagreement under seventy one five favor by the board and ephedrine support at least impiously i think your view that that they that the diagnosis of later diagnosis with respect to i b m should have been treated simply as new and material evidence relating to the benefits all the way back to two thousand plus clinton well that's one reason and the other reason is new material evidence is only consideration when there is a final decision and here that when the final decision because miss stewart filed a notice of appeal within the year you never actually argue because i thought this was telling you don't actually argue in the represent that that her initial claim would incompetence idea we knowledge in our brief that the board made a somewhat confusing statement on pages twenty two and twenty three but here the board that the v a pacifically concluded on page eighty one of the record that she will first of all she paid eighty one she specifically asked to add i d s to records all the way back that talked about her symptoms and that even referred to well your honor what she's talking about are the march two thousand and seven medical records which are contained in seventy seven and seventy nine and as mr concedes in her applied read that does not reflect a diagnosis  s seventy seven it says nervous stomach and on page seventy nine it says i b s question mark there was no diagnosis of i b s until two thousand and ten and so clearly this to be a did not consider it as part of the two seven medical records which would just say nervous stomach and i b s question mark so i think that it didn't just say those two things that are whole list of symptoms that add to the idea  disease but we have no link to relate the service and then ultimately and then all that was what she filed the notice of disagreement to so it doesn't discuss in any way i b m and i don't think that that was there was no no i b s was never a part of the original stomach problems clay i v s didn't show up and so what twenty to whatever later day a specific diagnosis in order to be encompassed within a claim in other words if i come to the v a and say i have severe headaches i don't have to say that i've got a brain tumor as opposed to something else to have that encompassed within my claim for severe and right yes your honor however i think there's a there's a mistake in using these the principles such as incline and saying that the veteran is not required to self diagnose to notice of disagreement here the veteran was not expected to self diagnose and then come in here the claims were adjudicated as they were presented to the v a she was given clear notice that they were that she had to file a notice of disagreement because if it was then she's entitled to if she wins she's entitled to benefits all the way back to september of two thousand and five and the fact that the v a and elected to treated as a separate why we don't remain and that's the case because it seems to me we need to know what was in that original claim and that sounds like a very factual question that we're not in a particularly good position to  e unless it's already been decided now of your opposing counsel thinks it's been decided but if it hasn't been decided then isn't that something that we need to send back well your honor we don't think that i think it's been clear stomach problems that all the symptoms if you read them lead you to conclude that we're talking about something more like i b s then gerd and and then she comes back and says you know i want to make sure i d s is part of my claim so reopen it or wear whatever you have to do to make sure it's in there and then the v a decides it's going to it's going to go down a whole different wrote you know i thought the whole point was that that the v a has an obligation to assist claimants in the development of was there and that's the definitely been conceded in the brief this was an effort to treat the better and fairly if possible based on what the veterans thought she had at the v a to decide and what the v a thought she had they had asked her to guide and here she was given was that brain tumor implicit in said something that it didn't in fact same here we do have that the notice of disagreement right the nose of disagreement that usually i disagree with everything you just said denying my whole claim the real question is what was in the whole clue does the whole claim incomp because clear this story did not make very clear what she was probably what her problem was and which used to be a context is dramatically different and this is a problem we way to help the veteran figure out exactly what that are in the problem was and we see these cases and i don't know how we communicate that problem by whoever needs to he i think the most important thing to focus on right now is where do you believe in the veterans court decision or otherwise that the factual finding that has been made in ms stewart's favor that the original claim as explicitly as i would have liked it but there is only one reasonable reading of that that statement in addition i'd like to point out that they disagree with the fleeting counsel that changed twenty and eight statement which is at i d s and ignores the rest of it which is as just o'malley pointed out was reopen my claim which was already on appeal and added i d s that the government has chosen  two decisions together i take it at that point and not the decision on her original claim which did not explicitly include i b s and the later decision which did include i b s but i'm not sure that given the court's opinion i'm a little decision if we all agree that everybody agrees that the original claim included i d s that second reading decision has no legal effect it doesn't mean anything restart seventy one of the s point was the statement of the case which they issued on stomach problems and then her her for nine and when she found that for nine she was entitle to the board's decision on ideas and that's where we went wrong very for the question