the next case for argument is fourteen seven five for men versus mcdonald you're going to have to help me with the veterans court to follow that request joint request from pardons because throughout the what the veterans court based this decision on in this case was court in a decision to find good cause you do not answer my question the v a cannot find the veterans court in this case the veterans court to find good cause as whether or not mr smith sees contemplated by the nova plan but then it proceeded to misinterpret the terms of that plan as they pertain to identification of cases to be returned to the jurisdiction for a new decision and an opportunity for a new hearing the veterans court added an additional limitation which simply does not exist which requires that a veteran demonstrate a case actually be that the board actually or at least possibly may have applied the invalid two thousand eleven rule but isn't it respectable that isn't it the case that the court clearly has the ability to determine whether or not this could cause for only man i mean that's just within their  plan that allows the veterans court to conduct its own review of the advisability of using those search terms to identify cases to go back in this case the veterans court had this entire analysis here that shows where they wouldn't do that but in their own way to do that because a motion leads leeway with the court to decide that but but again in this in this case the veterans court relied on its interpretation  which cases are covered by the no plan it's not that the bettors court had to grant these motions it's that the veterans court in this case they didn't do that they didn't interpret what's covered by and they interpreted what the results were which is different now they went through did the word search you came up with this name here it is and it lacks merit i would argue for example in this portion of the veterans course decision where the veterans court says the parties seek to shift responsibility to court to make them more detailed analysis required to determine whether a case so identified meets the more restrictive terms of the federal circuit's order there is nothing in the federal circuits for order in the nova case that is more restrictive than what is listed in the noble plan itself there's no additional limitation that the case actually has to have applied the two thousand and eleven rule the veterans court is reading into reading into the circuit's decision something that is simply not there but isn't that what the case was all about it was about cases that were affected by the two thousand and eleven rule that's why you were here it wasn't about cases where in which the two thousand rule wasn't even a flaw right that was what the whole thing was about right that's correct but request and the government devised a plan to both identify and rectify a potential harms in the plan that v a and the government came up with was to identify these cases through the use of broad search terms and file a motion to remain the case back to the board for a new decision an opportunity for a new hearing and doesn't as i said before in ten twelve seven twelve that the fact that they require so they file a motion does not there's a limited policy here why isn't this within the realm of why it's contrary to anything that one say was contemplated by the whole system sat and they all have to be sent back with the parties have to stipulate the cases have to be sent back all it said was that there's a motion to be filed right but the veterans court then went beyond the terms of the plan to find a limitation that was not there the veterans court is relying on an interpretation of the plan it's not that they necessarily need to grant all these motions it's that in this case they define good cause in terms of whether or not the case comes within the scope of sense over our proven plan now as i understand the record there are some number bases perhaps as many as nineteen or so in which the evidence to stand with use and veteran was n those cases you're arguing that those cases should be reheard even though no benefit was denied to the veterans the the v a in this case the correct thing they joined the joint motion because that was their obligation under the plan but i don't see where there is an obligation perhaps you can help and i haven't been able to find an well again it is not necessarily that the veterans court past the grand these claims is that in this case the veterans court is relying on an interpretation of the nova case and earlier in the earlier in that very decision  the court notes that it requests the plant to identify and rectify potential harms the court notes that the case will be identified by relevant search terms and th notice which is to be sent to all claimants identified officer vacate the effective board decision and provide each a claim each affected claimant with a new hearing so the the group of potentially effective claimants the court noted is identified by the search terms and what the c b c with the veterans court has done in this case was moved beyond those identified search terms and impose additional don't think that's a reasonable reading of the notebook in your honor at the veterans court in this particular case who looked at the documents that were submitted by the da in the new plan and concluded that the plain language of those documents and the intent of the plan was to remedy harm board may correct any application of the two thousand and eleven rules in the proposed plan itself to be a stated that the planets to remedy any harm caused by the application of the two thousand and eleven rule and finally in the supplemental one when you answer that address your foot no which you said the v a is offering we are community for newport decision to the claimant whose previous decision compliance it was required secretly home look at preserve it could it your honor i think we definitely flag the issue for the veteran's portion in the footnote stating you know that there was no applications particular case the party stipulated to buy but the a is required to request to remain an opportunity to potentially on the board we look at the case however the nova plan also clearly states this is on page ninety four ninety five the joint appendix that the decision to recall the mandate i stipulate to bring something to the attention of the court but you cannot stipulate to especially the o j to ask the court to reach an incorrect factually incorrect the noble plan requires a v a some argue with every level of the process that the better of course should use its discretion in order to grant these motions to recall a judgment joint motions for remount the veterans court did not do that in this case based on his misinterpretation of the noble plan and its insertion of additional limitations the veterans court is not the v a you know you're not saying that i'm not i'm not saying that the veterans court did not grant detroit motions to recall a judgment and joined most for a man based on his misinterpretation of the no plan the harm here is that if the case was remanded mr smith would be entitled to a new hearing under the no plan an opportunity to submit additional evidence which to which he is entitled to do under the strict terms of the noble plan so mr smith requests this court room in the case back to the veterans court to enforce terms of