the court we asked this court to squarely address where the seventy two fifty two extends veterans court jurisdiction to all board decisions regardless of the scope of their relief since tyrus we have known that veterans court jurisdiction extends to a final board decision there's no disputing that we know that a final board decision is a written decision that clearly and definitively denies a issue that was raised in appeal to the b v a we all know that we agree on that nobody disputes that what a final decision is or that the veterans court has jurisdiction over a final decision the question and in fact we do argue that it was a final decision the court may or may not agree with us on that they may or may not agree that that july two thousand and sixteen decision is final based on theory and if they don't then the question remains is this nonetheless a decision of the board and i think that if you as the secretary they're going to say no it's not a decision because it's silent silent on the question of the theory that was  remanded i'm sorry the theory that was not remanded to the regional office because it was silent they're going to say that howard and kirkpatrick control and i think that that's a significant statement there because howard kirkpatrick don't talk about silence howard says that if you have two issues where on appeal to the veterans court with the board decision and the the board decision addressed one of those clearly addressed it the q claim was not addressed in other words was not talked about  decision and because the issue was not addressed the court sent it back saying essential saying no jurisdiction but in reality what they were doing was a justice should billet he decision right they're saying that it's not ri or the administrative remedy hasn't been exhausted kirkpatrick is interesting too because kirkpatrick has two issues in it and one of those the court came out and said you know this the board had a they had appealed this issue to the board did not have jurisdiction to address something in the court came out and said following our following ledford you didn't raise that issue you didn't present its wonder ledford it's not there the board did not address howard you know that same just disability concern is not there but what kirkpatrick did occur patrick did is it said that the decision is the remain and is not a decision because it does not grant or deny reasons and bases as well and we know that when a board decision does not include reasons and bases the veteran's court does not come down and say this is not a decision it they say it's a decision that we can't review kind of just issue ability analysis and we're saying that there should be no difference with seventy one zero four d three that the board shall put in these statements denying or granting appropriate relief but when they don't it doesn't deprive the veterans court  the issue of justice should billet we think this is a critical distinction even though sometimes that the difference between this jurisdiction and just this ability seems to be sometimes academic i think it creates a real opportunity as we see in these reasons and bases opportunity for the court to have a dialogue with the board to say here's the reasons that your decision is not adequately reason here's the bases that you did not provide and in most of those cases the board can then go back and address them that same opportunity is being there's other things that are left in limbo in this particular case is what happens to miss pooles legal theory if she does not appeal it when this other legal theory that the board develops comes back up and she appeals is the veterans court going to come and say you missed your window that before but the lost my train of thought what the secretary is saying is that there is a theory that has remained but what they're not saying is that the issue and what they were clear in saying and what i heard was not they did not admit or agree that mr poole's legal theory was remanded i don't i did not hear them say it that way and that's the thing that we have issue with and kirk patrick the appellant incur patrick why one issue with who i think the government's read that premise but in that case i believe that it really is best for the veterans court to make that decision i don't think that this court should need to dive into the intricacies of what was and was not involved in the myriad of board decisions that come up to the court think the veterans course should be able to say this isn't right yet this issue is moot this issue they haven't exhausted administrative remedies or this is an issue of finality that we don't have finality in this or decision we're not going to address it or wait a minute this has been going on for twelve years there may not be finality but we're going to look at the exceptions the justice building rule of finality i think the veterans court should be able to say that and i think with respect that since this court has decided in their early limited jurisdiction to these issues and ledford howard kirkpatrick that what it's done is it's for close the veterans courts ability to develop just issue building doctrines and have that dialogue with the board to help the board improve the decisions it's making accelerate the decisions it's making and thus create better relief to veterans and their survivors played out in this case if the court had accepted jurisdiction over this pools appeal it could very well come back and say that it's not justiciable for any number of theories but it could also come and say that it is just the chabal because it's been waiting for fourteen years for a decision and we keep having to send it back and we keep having to send it back to the veterans court should be the one to make that decision they can't because the veterans court is under the impression as judge greenberg said in that the decision underlying this appeal is that the board's decision is not final within the meaning a seventy two fifty two and seventy two fifty two two says no words of finality congress included no words of finality they left that to the veterans court and by leaving it to the veterans court statute provides judicial review of decisions of the board there's been no decision here there's only been an order as this court said and patrick a decision grants organize relief there hasn't been that here the board essentially punted can for additional evidence that it's the absence of a decision they couldn't make a decision based on the evidence and it under its statutory obligation to develop further evidence if it sent it back to the regional  and orders even this court's review of veterans court remand orders is typically not done as on the as a small exception under williams where that the case fits into a particular category and where the legal question can potentially be lost general has no further question even if both issues can be appealed both issues that are in the board decision can be appealed there is a substantial risk that has not happened but there's a substantial risk that misquote could pass away and lose her entire right to that claim and it would put tire right through  that or see that through to finality that could have happened it could still happen at any time and it happens any time there's this protracted time period between decision whether it's remand grant referred to ny and appeal that's the issue as miss poole could die tomorrow right i understand you are saying we're asking to make sure that i'm clear on the remedy we're asking as we're saying that the veterans court should be the one to decide whether or not the appeal is arms or whether or not the issue is final whether or  not they have it's justiciable i think that for this court the question is is seventy two fifty two limited to final decisions and if not let the veterans court make these decisions and they're in the place to be able to say we've seen miss pooles appeal how many times we've seen this veteran's appeal come back on remand how many times it's time for us to address it the veterans court can't do that because of the very limited interpretation of seventy two fifty two that contradicts what congress said and until the court comes down and says that seventy two fifty two gives jurisdiction over all board decisions the veterans court can't develop that theory of just fish ability that allows it to have the better control over what appeal should be taken and what  appeal should not be taken and held the board and prove the process so that we don't have to wait fourteen years and three re mans they can address these issues as they arise there's no further questions we asked the court to find the seven to fifty two grand jury selection to the