courting gardner and repeated by the supreme court in gardner that status wanted isolation does not mean that they were doing it correctly they were not doing it correctly or are because the phrase additional disability independently great of all simply means what it said it is plain on its face what the veterans court did and what the v a has been doing for decades has been importing their rating skip or their combined rating taking all that has absolutely nothing to do with the process of awarding special monthly compensation there are two specific requirements the first requirement is that you have a single disability independently purpose and that is when there are multiple disabilities that are not individually rated poto that you couple actively analyze those using the table in order to determine the amount of compensation which will be paid up to total total has been met by the first requirement mr gazelle has a single disability rated totally disabled means to him the question then is when we move to requireme fourteen s one you the use of the combined rating table as in this case only precludes the qualification mr goodloe is the underlying purpose of the  getting a combined rating of one hundred percent in which this regulators could do this that you would not block because you would not have a single disability rated topo but when you have as here a single disability related total you simply look to the other additional disability to determine whether they are now to sixty percent as an independently redness is it your position that a statute is unambiguous that ever choir's a straight up mathematical formulation cor mean you'd have to we'd have to agree with you and agree that that there is no interpretation other interpretation that could be reasonable correct that would be necessary under the hands of statutory construction if the with the predicate that it was reasonable yes and my view is that it is not reasonable per se because it only serve one purpose that function and that is to prevent the veteran from qualifying for special monthly compensation under eleven fourteen s walk and that is inconsistent with the statutory scheme the statutory scheme designing a series of special circumstances in which a veteran is going to get more lovely compensation add to that you get the total rating plus and the plus here is what you have a single disability rated total and additional disability that if your home isn't even possible to other words they could be simply saying that you've got to get to sixty with at least one in other words what i'm i guess i was i think there's a lot of different ways you could interpret this statute and not me and not necessarily conclude that it is unambiguous in every single way if i work if congress had intended to use or for the tended to have them come back eleven fifty five eleven fifty seven demonstrate that congress knew how to use the term in combination says in the pendant li rate above it is independent from requirement one that it doesn't relate back to the v a s own regulation recognizes this distinction between the first requirement of the total disability and something separate that is independently rate of all other disabilities that don't relate to or are not the pendant upon that first disability but the goal here is to award special monthly is in a specific type of circumstance and they have additional disability rated sixty or multiple disabilities that are independently rate of all it's all that's how the v a interpret it's a good one why you're saying it that it is the question is what it dition all service connected disability me mean and she's saying what is independently rate of all it sixty percent or more me and it could be a this through the lens of that print statute and the veteran statute must be interpreted in a manner that most at they had such as the interest of the beneficiary and the beneficiary in this case is the better he has a total rating it needs requirement one there is no dispute he then has three ratings of twenty twenty and twenty that meets the requirements of the statu the only reason to import four point two five is to the nothing is a qualification that the veteran who at the end the v a concedes that if you meet the requirement under four point diabetes has multiple disabilities that collectively under the combined reading it will meet the requirements of for i want to fox herrera said no you can't use that migrating to able to get to it because it's not a single disability and that the difference between requirement one is that you must have a single disability and if the notion is that you have to have single disability then three routinely for us to construe this provision in a way that corresponds to the other provisions this is a separate and distinct provision there's nothing in the statute that deals with this particular situation a got one hundred percent rating  correct something the fact of the additional disability shall add up to one hundred sixty percent greater but what about the fact that they use the word independently breakable i mean it under your theory would seem like the best way for congress to accomplish what they wanted to accomplish would be to say if their combined to raiding was x or sixty percent or more and that's not what they said that's correct that's not what they said that's also not what they said for  and that's not what congress said what congress said was a digital disability independently rated and the meaning of that they say it is clear but they put actually put a qualification on that c they said it is clear but you have to use a specific method but no method that is required sixty is sixty twenty twenty and twenty is sixty it there is don't method to legislative history in which congress says we're going to go outside the norm here not your honor but the week that this court has to look at and the government has urged the court find that this language is on if the court's going to look at the unambiguous and big eulogy is language then it has to be confined that to eleven fourteen and to eleven fourteen as want not to import something else to create a method that's not what the government argued the government argued that it was an ambiguous and like of realities that's what she said but that maybe i am overstating  respectfully did not hear it that way the way that i've heard it was is that it becomes unambiguous because there are these other provisions in alleged at the five and eleven fifty seven that use the very phrase which is absent in combination and it is the absence of that that i believe this court in looking at this in the context of the pro the nature of what congress was trying to do in writing these statutes to read this regulation in a way that favors beneficiaries as opposed to the way in which the government is or the