all of the medical on late evidence that arose after march of two thousand that let me start out at zero and this is not just the way it is that arose after march fifteenth two thousand and six it's all of the way evidence in the case but most specifically and most importantly ms riley's own testimony in which she gives detailed recitation of exactly what her problems were that were caused by her asthma and exactly how they interfered with her performance at more than the court didn't dismiss that evidence and said that it could be considered but to failure to support it with medical evidence as required by the regulation meant that it miss reilly's evidence will be entitled to wait if supported by medical evidence and it goes on to say that there is what's wrong about you know what seems to be all right that's not correct your honor one of the rule is that  ords rule has long been they have to consider each type of evidence late were medical and you have to consider and it it doesn't matter is a board says in its early decision in china is what type it is or how much of any particular there is a requirement of medical documentation and with an application you have to provide certain things you have to provide your own statement the applicant statement you have to provide a supervisor statement and you have to provide a physician st said in that decision it clearly the part that says that this that subjective evidence which is essentially lay evidence of the applicant's own statements as the court says may be entitled to  great weight especially especially if that evidence is contradicted by the record now the blues decisions on us before this case as the government itself notes on page twenty six of its brief the  d march of then later you seemed to be arguing as a separate independent but sufficient ground that the late evidence both before end number two the one with the latest evidence you seem to be making the argument that they had to consider i understood their opinion to have considered and judged the question seems to suggest that he also thought they considered but they didn't get it very much because it wasn't in their adequately corroborated no i don't understand what the problem is because you were only  call the way evidence rule at the border quite to have been a finding based on what the evidence says that finding is not specific enough to suffice to this court's decision and  retirement case when it is supported by competent medical evidence in this case there is little support of competent medical evidence indicating that she was disabled that statement first that break let me just stick with the way evidence for a second your honor the sentence that i wrote to the court that sentence itself seems to show to us that there is no weight whatsoever being given in this evidence only because quarterback discussed and actually quoted its opinion i think it breached ten forty that the board found that little objective medical evidence what existed in that case in this case the board said virtually the same thing there is little supporting competent medical evidence that does not amount to that statement by itself is the trappings of factual analysis understanding and rounds it is the failure to give evidence error to conclude that evidence that showed only that she became disabled some time later as a matter of wot cannot establish that if it's true as if this is true if it is saying that as a matter of law rials and in that decision the court looks at the piece of evidence that was generated and referred to the applicant's condition within a year after her separation from the government said what the what the court says there is that this evidence refers back at least as far as within the year after her separation and there were it should it is so addresses are in the right as a matter of law why should evidence that tell me why evidence that is created after she resign that speak only to her medical condition after she resigned why evidence so if it's not been you're interpreting it as good means he was not allowed to consider it but what if i were interpreted in the sentence as this means he was not and this was not allowed to form the basis of his decision because there isn't any this particular evidence was were liable because something peculiar to this case there is i think retirement yes is there any statement in my opinion that says we don't like the post retirement evidence because in this particular case or something but is there something peculiar to all retirement evidence and discuss it one by one by one to my deduction from that is they thought they were allowed to analyze and away the post retirement at it in that worth and eight and that's rule would be any evidence that post dates appellants resignation cannot be considered ok and i say that because of the we are placement of the commas that almost makes it seem like behavior of these two rather than both of these two would be a sufficient reason to dispense with this evidence that the categorical rule which clearly you would say there's no way the a j was making that argument ok yes and you wouldn't even defend that as a categorical rule that what now let's go to number two which is what i think really is the subject of this whole discussion and number two potential way to read this is because the evidence home states and doesn't address her condition at the time o i thought you would defend it's ok to say we will not consider we will not rely upon medical evidence that post dates presentation and says nothing at all about her health prior to resignation i actually thought you might embrace that category worker will not reject it which is kind of what you seem to be doing but rather embrace it and say it is what is perfectly competent to come up with that rule because all of this body of evidence speaks nothing at all about whether she was disabled at the time but it seems to me you're not doing that and so that's why i'm confused because that's what i thought you were telling today but you want a whole different so i'm trying to understand exactly what the government's position is is it that a categorical rule like this is perfectly within the province of the board province to say as a legal matter this evidence is insufficient to support a disability claim your honor if as i understand the question it's there only evidence in the record that post and says nothing about her condition before there's nothing to tie up to the resignation evidence that the blue might be correct in applying  that what happened is there here that links the asthmatic condition that was identified in all of these various letters after her resignation back to her condition beforehand such that it would establish her disability because as might be something that can flare up wor get lesser and so while there may be problems in advance of her resignation how do we know she was really disabled and i know that under lindahl we don't really get to decide that but what about when trying to get at is what was wrong with that the application of a potentially categor significant price i guess across the board no longer where you have significant pre resignation evidence it also establishes the presence of a chronic condition and where that it is followed contemporaneously time as it was frog february throughout february and leading into march were notes for example that at the end of february dr heller noted that the ass but was moderate and had improved to some extent but then a month after the resignation you see that the ask me again is superior to the board seemed to attach some significance to this conclusion that the asthma had approved a little bit before the resignation i would submit it in a case where you have a chronic condition identified as such in preservation evidence evidence closely following the resignation is relevant and that is required said in mire and that is also