laurie elected to not come in and sit at the bench today but he is watching and listening to all arguments today so counsel that you should be sure that you do have a full composition taking in everything you say as you say it today so i with that said he will start with today's first appeal which is the feel number seventeen dash one eight one five clearly shows that there was an administrative error made by the board in this case by having not provided to mrs winters they required notice as to whether or not her august two thousand and thirteen letter constituted a request reconsideration for a separate board decision and that is required by the veterans court decision and ratliff which is a twenty six that at three fifty six are just so i can understand some of the background here why is it that some of these various claims were coming to the board in different vehicles you know there's a twenty thirteen or decision there's a twenty fourteen aboard decision  veterans court noted there seem to be some at least the facts of these claims are in a stricken planet trying making the claims intimately related and so i'm just trying to understand why are they all somehow rolled up into one vehicle that would i'm through the board and then up to the veterans court instead of the veterans court being caught in a situation where it was faced with seeing one set of claims from one of our position and deciding that the best thing to do to coordinate all the pending claims so that they're all resolved the same time so that if there's any dispute it would get appealed to the veterans court on together at the same time we are i'm not sure i can explain that i was not counsel below or counsel before the agency but i can say based upon my experience in this area that what happens in cases is that issues get separated in the adjudicated in the adjudication process before the agency and so they end up on different tracks but that's not really what happened in this case what happened in this case is we have a board decision in which mrs winters was denied the issue in that particular board decision and then she sent in a letter that letter under the ratlif decision that required the bore to inform mrs winters that that letter could have been considered as a motion for reconsideration and inquire as to whether she wishes reconsideration and then decide if she does whether there should be reconsideration that's where the administrative error occurred in this case because the board failed to respond to that august twenty thirty in letter and that failure allowed the second issue paying the board and ask the board for a status on on her pending reconsideration letter i'm not sure i can offer an explanation other than her lac assuming that she sincerely if that was a letter requesting reconsideration of the twenty thirteen board decision and she hadn't heard anything back from the board after a period of time why wouldn't the more natural thing to do would be to ask the board for a status on her ending reconsideration letter rather than filing an appeal to the veterans court as i understand the facts of this case she was not represented by the counsel that represented her at court and it was not until the council that represented her before the veterans court looked at the file to recognise the legal significance of that august two thousand and thirteen l well she could have done that but as i understand the facts of this case the earlier decision that was unfavorable is dependent or excuse me the later decision is dependent upon the earlier decision the decision on special monthly compensation only works for an earlier effective date if she can prevail on the accrued benefits claim that was not in the earlier decision due that's the reason why  could you talk about girlie and then i know e d s non presidential but there's i guess the government is making an argument that your case is very much like those  that what is really going on here in the veterans court judgement is an interest in judicial efficiency in having all claims all disputes that are inextricably intertwined to be presented to the veterans court in the single appeal so that it can handle it at one time rather than have to do piecemeal that a geisha and so in that sense that was apparently in the veteran's court's judgment what it was facing with with various claims misses went in through these different board decisions so in that sense why did the various court get it wrong in  following the rationale of early and easy well one they didn't apply either of those two decisions they applied the underlying early decision from the veterans court and a subaru decision from their jurisprudence but they did not and that was one of the complaints in our appeal rely upon the jurisprudence from this court which would have included the succeeding early cases but now we have had intervening decisions in both dover which was decided before this case as well as the decision in robinson that was just decided last week the difference is that  there was no concession of error by the secretary the secretary clearly made a concession of error and that was the reason that the board reversed giving the court remained to the board and that issues became inextricably intertwined they would not have been inexplicably intertwined but for that notice air at really wasn't there or joint motion to remain and that there was parties acknowledge that the right thing to do would be to send it back in order to quote unquote comply with harris yes and so therefore it would seem overall problem that we have here in the sense that the ord denied one claim on the  on the merits there by even the veterans court and this situation where it didn't really have a final resolution are pending class right but there was no administrative error in the girl there is an administrative error in difference between my girly does not apply in this case and by this court's decisions in davis and thompson apply in this case and control and allowed mrs winters to meet her  and then by a series of cases that follow a motorola that recognized that they remain and from an agency a appeal from an agent to use me is different from an appeal from a not administrative agency a decision and that under the administrative reaming him from the appeal of an administrative agency what is required is that case here to give the ratliff notice as the v a i don't recall responded to mrs winters in in giving her a status on how they interpret that letter that she submitted in response to the twenty thirty important decision i have and i have not been informed that your honor i'm not representing her in the proceedings below of the attorney that represented her before the agency is doing that it is my understanding that the agency normally does not proceed while there is an issue on appeal and so it would not surprise me that no action has been taken  the court's girly and eighty control the outcome of this case and both of those cases this court recognized unless we were to conclude like mr carpenter wants us to that there was an treated her motion her letter as a motion for reconsideration that ultimately united on its merits and that was an appeal to the veterans court and still pending before the veterans court now they did alternately respond to her about the nature of her letter they treated it as a motion for reconsideration and they jeopardy of the early earlier decision but more to the point the only matter before the veterans courts year was the july twenty eighth one thousand decision that decision was final irrespective of the fact that the june twenty third concession was non final the veterans court could have ruled on the merits of the july twenty fifth one thousand decision and it and it didn't do that despite the parties request that the court do so it exercised its discretion in light of henderson and harris to remand these matters that were inextricably then would have issued a reconsideration decision let's presume it would have been denial and then at that point in time i suppose the twenty fourteen board decision would also be out and then therefore the board the twenty fourteen board decision appeal to the veterans court would not have been quote unquote premature and so if only the board provided the raft of notice and done what it was supposed to do which is to act on the reconsideration letter the twenty fourteen board decision would not in the eyes of the veterans court then a premature appeal because it didn't end for failing to wrap up all that and in claims in front of the board so part of the problem with that argument is that ratliff doesn't prescribe how the board are supposed to treat a possible motion for reconsideration so if the better scored it had jurisdiction to order the board to provide the notice and it did not have that peel but if it did and it did order the board to provide the notice required by ratliff what would result it wouldn't tell the board to st as a motion for reconsideration or not and so it's possible that the photos would say no effect on the finality for what had no effect on the finality of the june twenty third team decision but all of that is sort of irrelevant because the issue is whether the veterans court in remaining the decision over which it did have jurisdiction did so authority one of the things we'd like to point out is that this court has never found that a party prevailed the purpose of the ija in the absence of an agency or that affected the merits of the administrative issue and there has been no error here let  just so i understand process why isn't the board obligated to consider all an extra completely intertwined and in claims at the same time because in the effort to have these administrative plans adjudicated quickly even if the air overlap with earlier claims or related claims an earlier decision that confers benefits gets money in the hands of claimants and veteran sooner than otherwise and it may be standard then veterans and claimants might not get paid for a very very long time because the nature of the way claims are raised and educated so that's why there's no legal obligation for the work to result in extremely implemented at the same time but it does make sense in many cases for the board to do like to begin by addressing the notion of a distinction between the concession below as a concession of fact as opposed to a concession of error at pending eighty one which is page eleven of the board fourteen if you'd occasion of the appellant's claims was premature now you're ours that's not a concession a fact that's a concession of error the later more decision the board decision that misses winners was forced to appeal in this case was premature because the other board decision was not final the government stood up here candidly said that decision was not final and as now disclosed that in fact they denied the motion for reconsideration and that issue was on appeal so there still can't be a decision by the board on the remained an issue of the board decision that was on appeal until that ca is resolved once that case is resolved then the board can proceed mrs winners was forced to appeal a denial of the last decision that decision was found and conceded to have been prematurely made higher purpose of each other is to isn't that what happened in both girlie and e t in the sense that we had a poor decision and that  denial and denied in order to preserve that claim but right here in the veterans court concluded that was premature because it needed to have all claims in front of it at the same time that's correct and what differentiates this case factually from the cases in curley and e d is that there was no finding of administrative error we assert that the veterans court decision should be read as a implicit finding of error based upon the concession that the concession was there was not the notice required by ratliff that made the decision on appeal premature that made these claims inextricably intertwined the government can't have it both ways if these cases are inexplicably intertwined then there was an administrative error there was it in ministry or i'm sorry the  appeals from administrative agencies that it not necessarily be a merit determination and the government is correct to date there has not been such a decision but i believe that this is a case in which the decision