implicitly challenged the competence of the examiner when he said i am referring to issues that i may not have discussed but which were reasonably raised by the evidence of my v a claims filed or in the v a s possession that proclaim it and and we believe that that duty to assist should have should have cued up and the v a to interpret that as as a challenge to the examiners credentials  addressing addressing the first the first issue that i mentioned we're going to be asking the court today to make any factual issues however in order to or in order to get to the legal issues we need to we  build the context of what happened a lot so this case was essentially decided this case and essentially came down to a battle of expert opinions three of those opinion provided by mr young's the rest excursions who were familiar with both context to where exactly the legal error occurred if if you'd if you'd indulge me the board so the board found that the surgeon's opinion had no rationale but the v a examiner's opinion while it wasn't but it's clear here that the examiners opinion didn't actually pass porting rationale the fact that the board felt the need to read this inherent logic into the opinion said on its face that it was book yet based on the context here the v a used the liberties afforded by the presumption of regularity to presuppose that the examiner was correct and that that opinion alone should control now if the presumption of extend to the board it was entirely inappropriate for the board which didn't have any medical professionals in its midst to weigh in on what they saw as unstated medical accident well it would run with that logic in the examiner is inherently saying that there was an additional source of trauma in mr young's past now while the v a does not have any obligation to pinpoint the source of a medical condition the duty to sis does compel the feel to take reasonable measures to look in to cure any known deficiencies in the record and that was and that was the again the v a s procedures are supposed to be as as close a proclaiming as possible and what we are what we are saying is that even if the v a had met their duty to assist in  their initial in the initial part of the case after the examiners opinion which identified a deficiency in the record they did not meet their duty to assist so once again which i are trying to understand what you mean by opinion identified a deficiency in the record they needed to make reasonable reasonable measures to try to cure that that deficiency so at the very least they could have contacted mr young to ask him about it but that contact was never made i would prefer i would prefer to refrain to speculate as to what else they could have done but they could have they could have looked into the file look to see if there are evidence of absence this again this again goes toward the board's presumption that the examiner's opinion was correct now what normally happens in a aneurisms is they don't they don't show themselves until it ruptures and by that point it's usually too late and that's and you know patients but they are gamed and the reasons are usually asymptomatic until until that time occurs now  young showed that the medical literature polo shows that that that that's possible and he had the three surgeons who also agree with him on that point right there that's really what i'm trying to  identified this this new deficiency something should have to should have been done i don't think that the court actually needs to come to the come to the issue today of of what exactly should have been done because nothing was actually done  deficiency and i believe that they should have they should have really looked at the at the records to see if there were any if there were any other sources of trauma that could have been that could have traced his that his condition could be traced ok thank you provided more than just their say so to say that the trauma cost incurred in the car accident caused mr young's condition there is nothing aside from just the conclusory statement offered by any of those and it does not account for that eight or nine year gap in symptomatology there was no mr young had had subsequent medical exams including one and you believe just the month before that found that his heart and other structures in that area were  that's traveling with the courts are obliged to appreciate that there is a better and friendly the doubt should be resolved in favor of the veteran and according to subjectively reasonable critical physicians it's not impossible therefore they had a certain amount of doubt perhaps a very small amount but veteran friendly service regime such as this one the veteran still has to show that in his case it was more likely than not work as likely as not and then that the benefit of the doubt doctrine applies and that is a more favorable standard certainly then that's a bit of the standard for civil litigation where the preponderance is more likely than not there is no benefit that will be here even if mr young was able to show that these two options were equally likely he would get the benefit of the death but that was not the case the record a lot so i think just mere possibility that it is too far as standard for even a pro veteran there was a the examiners opinion said that there was a traumatic event there there was evidence presented that there was this terrible trauma that happened to mr young and usually as my colleague said there was the usual outcome  help the veteran established place instead of sick it seems to in these cases it seems to have operated as a kind of a gotcha you don't put in an ash rationale now you can't get your benefits it wasn't explicitly raised below now you can't raise it here is really where the really argument lies i think are to do to assist they should have come back to him and they should in the cases where not only is it not impossible but it was they