today is whether the board can take jurisdiction and make a final determination on a claim where the agency of original judge jurisdiction the regional office in this case has not issued a statement of the ca the controlling statutes in one thousand nine hundred six were at section four of to which other arises the board to make a final determination on the proceeding instituted before the board the others particularly pertinent statute to this inquiry in one nine hundred eighty six was at four o five which describes the procedure by which a proceeding is instituted before the board on appeal from the regional  the secretary agrees that a timely notice of disagreement is jurisdictional but argues that a statement of the case is merely a claims processing rule anderson is instructive on that issue the statement of the case that before a statement a case is issued under the statute both in eighty six and now and today the regional office is required to take a second look at the case make a determination whether additional development is required only if the regional office has made that determination does the state in the case issue if it has made that determination and it still does not resolve the disagreement then the statement of the  mr parrish was deprived of that second look the vote was not informed of his appeal rights and that becomes critical because the regional office first informed him of the decision still did not get a fair process because he did not understand the time limits which he would have been provided with respect to submitting additional evidence for example the steps supplemental statement of the case which is his well that i think would not fall on him from challenging the effective date through the c u a procedure proceed procedure by attacking the jurisdiction challenging regulations concede and judge show one's decision at the conclusion also notes this that failure to issue a statement of the case is in fact a due process of due process violation  strong weight with respect to the secretary's view about the importance of a statement of the case with respect to whether or not the veteran has had a fair hearing a fair process with respect to the adjudication of  certainly the secretary's concession that the statement of the case failure to issue it as a due process violation with would be strong weight that we would think the court would consider in making that decision under the regulations that decision the veteran and file of what was construed as a notice of disagreement afterwards that notice of disagreement never generated the preliminary second look at his case to determine if additional development was needed  when he filed the document which the v a construed as a notice of disagreement and that was in december of one thousand nine hundred five his veteran service officer also submitted additional evidence again he had a right to have a statement of the case which by which you're saying is that the content of the supplemental case and the content of the case would have been say but that the label affected his right to get a second consideration from now no i'm not had the statement the supplemental statement of the case number one been issued after the notice of disagreement and not before and if it had generated this second look at his case and we have no evidence that it did and certainly was not required with respect to supplemental statement of the case but then again the document was the senate and i beg your pardon the content of the document was the same it's the label that was wrong now i was what was wrong about hunting in the dock the content of the document the supplemental statement of the case number again  i think it's very important to remember this was the notice of the decision it was not a document issued for the purpose of perfecting the board's jurisdiction in connection at same time in december one thousand nine hundred five when the file was wrong with the content of the that's that's what i'm coming to your honor in december one thousand nine hundred five when the vet when the veterans v s o filed what was construed as a notice of disagreement he also submitted additional evidence under the regulations then and now he was entitled to have that additional evidence reviewed in the first instance by the regional office typically that were not us immigration that said that as a consequence you say flows from it's being labelled a statement of the case i'm saying what in the nature of the documents in the content of the box in terms of what he told them what's different well your honor the error is in the timing of the issuance of the supplemental statement of the case because it does not give the veteran what he was entitle to number one that second look at number two it did not address the subsequently submitted evidence in the first  the regional office level the supplemental statement of the case had it been issued after the notice of disagreement would have presumably addressed the veterans new evidence as it was a statement of the case was never issued after the notice of disagreement the case which reviewed the secretary's b c a regulations one review and the one review on appeal requirement bars the board absent a waiver from the veteran bars the board from considering veterans new evidence in the first instance that was entirely consistent with what the regulations at that time in one thousand nine hundred six required the one review on appeal language and seven one hundred four which was reviewed in da v is notice of disagreement and again that s s o c preceded the notice of disagreement the veteran could reasonably have assumed that n s a statement of the case would be issued and that's how the veteran knows how much time he has to submit additional evidence it's how he knows how bad evidence has been considered by the regional office it assist him in framing his appeal to the board of veterans peals mr parrish did not get the benefit of any of those the case is supposed to do a few things one of them is to acknowledge receipt of the notice of disagreement and then provide a summary of the evidence and the decision to the veteran it is not an opportunity for the v to hijack all appellate proceedings by simply not complying with the statute what we have here is a rather unusual situation it's not the way that any of the similar cases have come up we have an unusual situation where the v a did not issue a statement of the case but nevertheless provided mr parrish with all of the information that he required to pursue his appeal effectively and we know that because he appealed his decision to be acknowledged that he was appealing his decision he was able to offer dish no evidence he he participated in hearing and then he obtained a board decision  yes which makes this different than some of the cases in which the veterans court has found there not to be a final decision in those cases because of particular failure on the part of  a there maybe is a board decision that doesn't address the issue and the reason is because the better and didn't know that he was supposed to appeal and then the v a didn't address the issue that's not the situation now which is jurisdiction abo of our four hundred five the claimant is supported a period of sixty days from the date the statement in the case is made and that may be extended and it's pretty much up to the board whether the board chooses to extend that or not and the veterans court  be some sort of notice to the v a that the veteran wants to appeal that notice does not have to happen within the time allotted in section three because section three allows the v a to extend that period and so the but the veterans court has determined that not to be a truly jurisdictional provision and we agree with that so we're saying one part of the statute is the other part of the not i guess the only other thing that i would like to add is the but the sort of unusual intersection between what mr parrish is actually requesting here which is a determination that there was q in the board decision the intersection between that and the whole question of whether the court decision is final mr parrish wants the court to ignore that the board decision exists all together but unfortunately he stuck with the cue analysis even if a board even if the board lacks jurisdiction that can't be collaterally attacked except through q and once we're in the q framework we need to have a couple of things and outcome determinative change  can't say that there would be any material difference in the outcome so there simply can't be q there is no longer room with  you is this is really a what mr pierce thing is saying that this case remained open because there was never any event that occurred that was necessary to validly move it along the chain of events between the r o m the ultimately the b the a back in ninety five and since it remained open that the plane be became one ultimately found a decision to still be pending because of some kind of error in all of those cases that what we have it is a board decision that doesn't address the issue here we have a board decision that addresses the issue and what mr parrish is asking for therefore you have to go back to it it was a ritual well that's what he's saying except he's getting there by q that's the only way he can get there that's it suppose there's never been a board to suppose that he was waiting around for his associate and never did take an appeal and he was supposed to be told that he had a right to appeal he wasn't and and the of the claim as far as he was concerned just sat there he wouldn't be barred right because you would be saying that well the only way  can get relief is to through q and through q he has to go back and find a board decision and there's no board decision therefore you lose that's correct in that instance which is more often the way this kind of case has come up  and he is bound by the by the parameters and the framework of the q analysis that i think is saying that poor decision was as irrelevant to my claim as if you had gone over to lafayette park and gotten three chess players together and ask matter of first principles that you can't go back and collaterally attack a final decision even if there's a jurisdictional mistake and i'm speaking just generally not in the v a and that's right so the only one the only reason why he's able to do this at all is because of this unusual q framework that we have so it's the only way that you can look back is through he'll then you have to you i don't think you can ignore the existence of a board decision he could didn't make those arguments i think we're stuck with with the favorable to write well i would i would think so yes however of course that when the the v a files a few claim to revise a prior decision that frankly there is no provision for the board to file a claim to revise a prior one of its own prior decision as i was saying would never come up that i believe self your honor the issue of whether the state of the case is a six six one hundred twenty day time limit for filing a notice of appeal to the court was jurisdictional could not be waived were number one that it looked at the fact that the statute in henderson there the requirement was statutorily based found that jurisdictionally significant in this case the s o c requirement is likewise statutorily based i'm not sure i would rely too heavily on  go to the to the extent that it may or may not who knows survive the supreme court it will be on the issue of equitable tolling and not on general principles of whether whether it's insu nderson court would not only reverse this court's decision but also revisit it spoils decision i think the principles are are still solid henderson also looked at the time of review provision  a finding it significant that it was specific in stating how when and where the notice of appeal was to be filed that likewise compares to section four zero zero five which is quite specific about how to initiate a piece an appeal and how to complete the appeal henderson looked at whether there was any language in the statute that would suggest that congress had in that tent that there would be an exception made to the jurisdictional restriction provided there in it found none and henderson and this one is particularly applicable particularly telling in this case because in four zero zero five there is an exception with regard to one element that being to be a nine the substance of appeal which the veterans court  that language contrasts with the mandatory language in the same statute with respect to the notice of disagreement in the statement of the case clearly congress knew how to do that because it did it with respect to one element but only one element finally the henderson court also considered the factor of whether there might be any intention in the legislative history of the jurisdictional statute which would suggest that it was intended government shared any of that history with us so in each factor in henderson this case goes right down the line that this is indeed a jurisdictional requirement issuance of the notice of disagreement issue of the statement of the jurisdictional issue because the jurisdiction cannot be way would thank you your honor like you