that you know there's no legal authority for doing so and that they both acted without jurisdiction and over a virus manner  assumption that the board when asked to decide the date of eligibility was bound  subsidiary determination service connection from the regional office not was standing that there are i guess statutory provisions relevant here that say the board is opposed  to you know basic decision on the entire record in the proceeding and consideration of all the evidence that material and record and applicable reasons of law which if there were nothing else might well suggest that the board was right in thinking that when asked to determine the date of eligibility it was free to decide  and issue as the service connection that was contrary to the way the regional office had decided what you mean by date of eligibility when that is entitlement arose and that means when the disability began and in mr shuford case his disability began well before his application was filed so you know the his affected and are you asking me one of the board should have gone back behind the the service connection decision or should have gone behind the service connection if you buy the original office but what what what what made what was the legal authority for saying that the board could not ask the service connection question when it was being asked by you to grant many years more of benefit proved that veteran was entitled to benefits based on the evidence that had been submitted prior to his death so i mean this help process is inconsistent with the notion that cannot appeal itself or on the other hand if you know if service connection is granted for at the v a then she has no reason to appeal that issue secretary have appealed to the grand service connection service action issue yes no i don't believe so because it's a favorable decision i think that that's inconsistent with the entire system i guess my understanding has been maybe just correct me if i'm wrong that the secretary is entitled under the statute and the regulations to appeal a veteran favorable decision under the clear and unmistakable error decision standard that wrong i think that there are in limited cases for example in cases of and that limited contact of i don't i don't recall that i didn't review that to be honest with you because it didn't i didn't believe it applied in this case what the board did was to effectively allow them to appeal a decision that was favorable to the veteran right that's correct that's wrong as well here is that when the board inquired into the correctness the service connection determination made by the are all that was effectively allowing the v a to say we're not taking away the benefits you've got but we are rejecting a necessary promise for those benefits and in rejecting them we will not extend them we're going to leave in place what you've got ha the what the board said but i think because of the statutory requirements of the once the benefits are granted the secretary can't repeal the effect as is says that previous determinations which are final and binding including decisions of service connection will be excepted as correct in the absence of clear and unmistakable air why didn't doesn't that  error the board really is bound by a specific service connection determination and issue determination when it's appeals modernization act new section fifty one o four cafe would in fact impose a standard that says any finding favorable to the claimant as described in fi and four before this title shall be binding and he finding shall be binding on all subsequent adjudicators within the department unless clear and convincing evidence that's the statutory language is shown to the contrary to rebut the favor not at the level of concrete award made on an illegal in some briefing i think that you all filed another case some reference to the v a having offered legacy claimants the opt in choice to opt into the appeals modernization act system was that done here could it have been done could it be done now nothing in the record here reflect that it was done suggested or tried to opt into it i am not entirely certain of what the criteria are are for opting in my understanding is that there are several new tracks created by the appeals modernization act the old made within the one year period prescribed and seven thousand one hundred and five by officials of the department which suggests that at least until it was repealed the secretary could actually appeal to what he or she can appeal and certainly grants by the regional office of benefits are not something that can be appealed and then as we talked about at the beginning decisions to the veterans court can't even be appeal secretary secretary can issue opinions that are supposed to be binding on the boards that the secretary disagrees with a particular outcome he can try to affect change that way but certainly at the board level and below the se and i'm not sure i answered your initial question just from talking about how the appeals modernization act provision would apply here i think certainly hypothetical but the question ed the statutory language that says you have to look at the evidence in the filing date of death nobody disputes here that at the date of death there was no medical opinion linking hypertensive cardiovascular that's what i meant and i think the v a said that the only basis in the record on which there that connection could be made was evidence that post dated mr shuford staff namely the two thousand and fourteen doctor notice but even if there was some sort of lack of notice for lack of better term mr cameron doesn't point to anything to indicate that that lack of notice prejudice me before we completely run out of time here come back to scream point when i was five i'm not understanding what this regulation has to do with this situation because it's talking about reopening final decisions here findings ok but what i'm confused about is that the argument here is the secretary could not appeal a favorable finding i'm trying to figure out what statute or regulation govern the secretary's right that is the veterans court three thousand one hundred and five it seems to me is only dealing with final decisions which this is not and so what is the provision that governs the secretary's right to appeal from an r o the arguing that the secretary knew that that that statute was in play well ok now let me tell you what let's blathering me here is that the apparently the question was raised that perhaps it was honor and again whether the initial conferral benefits on this you heard was correct or not that decision is not something that is being challenged or the benefits being taken away from what she saw were additional benefits in the form of an earlier that to date and the v a is not required to perpetuate an error that it that the regional office made and continues the award of benefits simply because today based on the plain language five thousand one hundred and twenty one that says you look at the veterans file at the time in the evidence in the file the prior decision granting this you could benefit from both the psychiatric disorder that's not a issue here and then the it also granted her benefits for the hypertensive cardiovascular diseases linked to the psychiatric disorder that's not being challenged but what what she is now seeking is the additional benefits on top of proving her case based on the evidence that was in the veterans file at the time of his staff veteran staff and she did so and that's threes and that the v a granted the the client but did you or did you argue to the veterans court that she hadn't had opportunity to argue this issue before the board because it was raised by the boards to a sponsor we did where can you should that in the record here is  this issue after the vs original finding was an imposition of a nd burden of proof that the law doesn't really require it requires only that she prove it one time and you know we relates hypertension back to service but in any event we believe that there was evidence in the file for us to believe that that the board was improper and reconsidering you know this issue that she fully proven before the original office appropriate to you know impose on this woman a nd burden to prove the same requirement she had to prove in order to get the benefit granted initially i think that's pretty much ye