diabetes and thirty years later he develops a coronary artery disease so you're saying that when this arises thirty years after the initial overlord that he gets th full entitlement more evidence kept being submitted as is in the in the case of history as long as it's you're aware as it was going you kept them in evidence that he had heart problems back in two thousand that he had  hands at that point it's our contention and under this court case but most notably in harris the most recent case that was submitted a supplemental authority that this was supposed to be construed broadly and the v a at that point in time needed to look at this and start going down the road of investigation as to what under no one they could start awarding him compensation for these weren't he didn't need to make these claims he has an underlying claim it's for service connection for diabetes under the case law i think probably one clear i mean i really am just unclear or not going one way or another but on these three conditions that we're talking about here he got the two thousand he filed a claim in two thousand and three and he got the effective date for service connection in two thousand and three you're saying that when you filed he filed a claim in two thousand and three issued and then as a den cherry question abo when he started the symptoms of that and therefore the award should have gone to when he first of the system and the burdens of that rather than when he actually filed a claim i'm saying that in two thousand three what he filed is not a claim i'm saying in two thousand and three what he was saying is he's clarifying what's going on with his pending diet with the diabetes claim that is ongoing that's a mistake i think they got made here is the board and then the better score and to understand what standard would you apply you get a diabetes claim and it's granted and it goes to thousand and then every decade of every five years to whatever some i mean i don't i'm not understand what you're advocating how we handle the secondary if i think that in fact i were what we're advocating is even simpler than what the it is here because you've got a pending claim for diabetes what we're trying to do or what do you should be trying to do at this point is rate it properly rate his condition ok so he's got the pending claim it's going to two thousand he's got seeking the proper i think the way to think about it not simply if he's seeking his proper compensation for his diabetes as well as the complications of the study it's like a real hope you can get compensation for complications of complication the complications would have to arise before he would be i think under ellington and that line of cases mcphee cetera if the complications truly are wrote at a later date then that would be in this gets into a lot of facts but that would be appropriate to rate the conditions when they arise in this case that's not what's happened with what's happened if you go with the with kind of the analogy of a wheel is going to he's got a wheel with the center of it is the diabetes it's decided you get to put in and they get the same set the date is that what you do is not necessarily in favor of if they truly are right at a later date you can't ellington i think i'll just show that each of before the board events in the field as well as the fact that that being never really did undertake what it was supposed to do under no one back in two thousand there was evidence in here especially most clearly of the peripheral neuropathy of the upper extremities but certainly later on he said that he had as long as this is going on if he if it can be shown that he had the c a t and he had to interrupt the going back to the date of the original claim that's when they should do if in fact that is it your view that as long as the court the original claim to spending but once the original claim rule you're advocating here and one of the sub parts of that is does that rule apply if the primary claim is still open or even after that primary claim is decided and he gets the warrant and we have the step the date of it and so forth if a claim post and he comes back and truly filed a separate claim for the conditions that he's claiming as secondary that's three point three one but what if you claimed and yeah and on and that's the roll back in two despite my claim now that it actually arose back in two thousand and two i should get that that i think that's going to depend on the factual situation but i think that if it's true like i say if it's truly the a new claim even if it didn't arise before and he's got nothing to go hang his hat on that's been pending as the true underlying claim and it's a close to two asians five years later we're dealing with the handing client underlying claims so is it your view that if any stage of the proceeding and these cases unfortunately go on for  very well we're on him so he can come in and you know four years down the road when the cases before the board and put in new evidence when it's before the veterans claims i mean the problem is at what level do you shut down the evidence that you can come forward i think i think it's pretty i'm not i would worry too much about that because as a practical matter let's say it is four years down the road and your honor rightly points out these things take a very long time but if you truly perfecting his appeal right what he's seeking and what the court has always said or bill not all but heads for the past decade or so said is that your seat with the veterans seeking is the highest compensation of bailable so yes the if there is a pending claim pending claim for the underlying diabetes is ongoing and then he gives evidence good evidence that he suffered peripheral neuropathy back when he filed the original claim and the claim is still ongoing it's not a claim of that point he is just putting in evidence well of what is demonstrate that he had the secondary consideration as of the time he filed the initial claim and yes the initial claim is still open that he ought to be able to get that is that's a really or i just kind of understand with the rule as you error here because if it completely violated what this court said it should do inherent it didn't even give consideration or if it did i'm missing it it didn't even give consideration exam railroaders and that minus cases which is which is what saying what i'm advocating that you're seeking the highest compensation getting bogged down in a claimant and all of these things is what v a did to really muddy this up these aren't separate claims if you truly was not diagnosed with c a g until two thousand and three and that really is what ends up happening then that's fine the effect so what's the difference if you say that you have to file a new claim you're going to get if you fall into a claim you're going to get it back to and to that time i mean i don't understand if it's his symptoms or if he didn't wasn't diagnosed took two thousand three he's not going to get the two thousand and eight in any event he's going to get the date he was diagnosed and then filed this claim well that's you're talking with the city and i'm saying i i disagree with the fact that that's the that's when he got diagnosed with it but the a didn't go it's not that arose in the future again and certain that putting a subsidy for just a second and focusing on the left upper extremity neuropathy there is evidence in the record in two thousand at the time of the original claim that he is having this underlying diabetes used to rate him for what the neuropathy is causing him because that's the guy that's the way under the belt that's the way a diagnostic tool is set up that's how to truly rate his diabetes so they gave him the because of some complication you're i was something that because there's no there's a there's a number of symptoms or potential complications that can flow out of that right that all of those complications should relate back to that relating back to the original diagnosis but how can you how can be a doing that how can it award disability for compensations and did not exist for complications that did not exist during that time period if they didn't exist v case the court simply didn't do that here and so it's not up to you to get into this record and figure out what he had and when he had it those are factual findings and they need to be done below but they need to be done under the proper legal standards and that proper legal standard is to read these things vary but as to releasing sympathetically pro veterans and abroad of that's what the veterans court didn't do and i'm just here to discuss a better sports era because that's all i can do and the veterans court didn't do that it didn't follow what the court told it to do and parents to follow them right and foll robertson and it did not look at that broadly all it did was cite one old pay scale for the simple proposition that medical evidence in and of itself doesn't necessarily raise a new claim but again that's novel to happen i think we have the argument thank original plan in two thousand and two incorporated into to incorporate all ten so claims that might be out there technically under the big rules regulations mr both is claiming two thousand was solely for diabetes it was not  the lower externally however the medical examination show that he was having significant problems with his feet he was having trouble walking a few feet was off he was unable to play sports anymore so notwithstanding the fact that his claim was only for diabetes he was rated for claim in two thousand and fifty the medical examination and the rating office had determined that that there was a raid a bill disability he could potentially have gotten but i'm not sure but hypothetically if he just read later of the time the disability manifested or the time of the claim so if you have if you make a claim in two thousand and three for disability to test in two thousand one technically you don't get the earlier effective date in this case applying abroad since because he did make a claim with diabetes in two thousand and it is v a practice to look for complications when it does a medical examination for diabetes if there are often to be of the chance or the corner artery disease had been diagnosed and were manifest at that time then he likely would have been rated for it just like he was for the neuropathy even because he complained that he's having trouble walking and the doctors recognize that that was a complication of diabetes and he was entitle to orating for that t ime and for compensation but as judge approved pointed out earlier regardless of roberson or the regulations you cannot break you can not later diagnosis of secondary conditions related diabetes cannot automatically relate that to the day to day regional planning it doesn't matter whether it's a new claim whether it's an old plant whether it's an open flame in here the claim has remained continue what i'm going to show you come in two years later when you can show that it was misdiagnosed in the original meaning in two thousand that indeed he was manifesting and did have symptoms and he did have a problem at the time of the original plan and that would be a different situation to here the board of veterans appeals specifically looked at the record particular disease has to be this you know that that the probability of developing these secondary complications are higher or that we're just simply says these are complications that are going amputated and we knew that potential back when my diabetes was diagnosed diagnosed why why does that not relate back to the original notions we don't know what is based on cody five fifteen and it's sort of a hybrid but you look at it it's actually a problem just that you have to have trouble with your hands moving your hands now is the time he was examined in in two thousand there cases clear about that it doesn't distinguish between new claims and old things it just says if you have a secondary service condition under three point one one zero it is part of the original condition but that doesn't mean you get the effective date for diagnosis of the original condition it would be ridiculous if  mister if mr bowser had no sign of hypertension till two thousand head to say well now you get compensation back to two thousand just because you made your original claim for diabetes i would also mention that mr both counsel made reference to the fact that there was a hypertension diagnosis in two thousand but that hypertension is not the same coronary artery disease mr in fact mr bowser has never been service connected for the hypertension it's been found not to be related to the diabetes so that was not evidence that he a quick question because i don't want to do the i don't want this to hand without hearing from you about just the diagnosis code and seventy nine thirteen has has no one and it says evaluating compensable complications of diabetes separately a less to two to value weighing them separately a let's say a part of the criteria used to supporting one hundred percent evaluation so do the work where the the secondary complications and with mr bowser with a part of the criteria or had been part of the current two that's being used to support a one hundred percent in many ways if he was the reason for that note is because if he were to be awarded one hundred percent then there would be a leaving aside the circumstances of this case you can see that a low rating could be circumstances under the rule you advocating we have to come into play if you've got a hundred percent there could be infuriating problem but that's so far afield of what we're talking about today because there is no hundred percent rating and there's not a pyramid to get shoes here so i don't think that and i don't think that that really is the eliminate the discussion very much because if there was a hundred percent there would be a different and different things one would have a lot i have one final thought