department of veterans affairs correct now you're a veteran died of a non service connected disability that's correct and the eligibility for that seems to rest on thirteen eighteen at least normal well you know if it can rest entirely on thirteen eleven a two and a case of a surviving spouse  but it if you look at the language it says in the case of the death of a veteran who at the time of death was in receipt or was entitle to receive compensation for a service connected disability rated totally disabling for a continuous period of at least eight years immediately preceding death and then it talks about the fact that your spouse has to be married for that entire eight year period now that's all that is required when you read eight won with eight to it simply says that was surviving spouse and that's the critical difference here is that thirteen eighteen applies to well i don't think you can agree with that it looks to me like a two so that is if you qualify you can boost the amount of aid he won by showing certain additional things but your veteran was denied on the basis that he hadn't established in title meant any level of compensation not even a basic level much less an add on going to bump the basic well just to be clear you are my client is the surviving spouse she is the dependent not the veteran and she qualifies based upon her deceased husband stats a right that's correct because there is nothing in thirteen eleven that says the qualifying language that you read into it and that the court below read into it and that the v a chooses to read into it there isn't anything in thirteen eleven that says if you qualify under thirteen ten or if you qualify under thirteen eighteen then we will pay you this amount of it will run through the basic level one thousand dollars and a little the section come out and then hand them out but doesn't do anything with entitlement because thirteen eleven a one says that the i c shall be paid to a surviving spouse a surviving spouse is the only one that caught under eighty two under thirteen eighteen the qualifying dependents are not only the surviving spouse but dependent children and even dependent parents how does that help you when seems to me that  government case because you have to show that you meet the cost of the basic qualification of eighteen to get any money and then if you can meet him additional qualifications like a longer period of marriage you get that extra two hundred sixty five dollars but that's an absurd result because you have to meet a one year marriage requirement and a ten year total disability in order to get an enhancement for an eight year total because the legislative history of this additional compensation for dependency and indemnity compensation arises out of congress's recognition that spouses who are married to totally disabled individuals have an additional burden and identifying that additional burden by the number of years of marriage allows for that enhanced but not just in one way but into what is in the way of eight years of total disability any eight years of marriage independent of the one in three if there was anything in thirteen eleven that referred to thirteen eighteen then i would sit i would agree that there is reason to interpret this statute this way but you're asking to deprive mrs burrell of the benefit of benefits that she would qualify for had her husband only lived and it totally disabled another fourteen with with all due respect your honor it is the basic level for a surviving spouse but the surviving spouse in this case who but you would agree that a one in thirteen  alternatives that on active duty and obviously you can't meet the eight to qualification if you died on active duty but if you die from a service connected debt you could meet the eight to and get that enhanced benefits the point here is  that this is simply a way to exclude a category of recognized classification of widows that should receive dependent benefits at a higher weight based upon th qualifications that are down a five in eight two years back that they should be entitled to a higher rate but the question i think we have is how can someone qualify for a higher rate when they otherwise wouldn't qualify for the eight two and you look at the facts this is perot's husband was totally disabled for more than eight nafta years and she was married in those eight that half years that qualifies for the benefits described  follow because if you look at the language and true it talks about a totally disabling or continuous period and that's where the confusion they're not just talking about someone who's been married three years f totally disabled for a period of ten years with a thriving suppose having been married for eight years that would have been the most lot if you were drafting the statute that would have been the most logical way to accomplish what you say years would make more sense than saying eight years because under thirteen eighteen you have to have been disabled for ten years and once you're under thirteen eighteen assuming that you were married for at least eight years you get this thirteen eleven enhancement but years as opposed to the ten years and thirteen eighteen or any other period of time presumably congress thought that was the fission period of time to warrant an extra benefit on top of the usual dependency and a compensation was in one thousand fifty eight and that was for ten years became thirteen ten for service connected debts and for alaska which became thirteen eleven which provided the rate so initially in hundred fifty eight the only way you could get d s t would be based upon a service connected death and then in one thousand nine hundred ninety eight congress decided to expand that and say not only service connected death but if the death was not terrorist connected and the having a totally disabled spouse translating into a need for d i see that and i nine hundred ninety two was the edition that we're talking about here thirteen allow me to watch congress discuss specifically as an additional amount on top of the basic grade congress and the joint explanatory statement describe it as an add on and then the house report why and even into more detail and said specifically that this was not intended to be a liberalization if you look at the plain language of thirteen eleven it's very different from thirteen ten and thirteen eighteen which provide a basic rate thirteen ten says when any veteran guys from a service connected disability the secretary shall pa own people that we're talking about here if mr carpenter work were to prevail the class that would be covered that your in your view shouldn't be covered is only between those veterans who were disabled between eight and something less why congress chose and thirteen over the years can you suggest a logical policy reason why congress would have wanted to exclude the people in the category that you're just fine not necessarily that congress would wan exclude but when congress was and acting this thirteen eleven eight two was on to what already existed which was thirteen eighteen and thirteen ten so if you look at thirteen ten the veteran dies from the service connected disability and say they were never totally disabled there was less of a hardship on the surviving spouse and if they both died of service connected disability and they were totally disabled for eight years congress chose a line of ten years to determine that ten years was the gentleman amount of time to say that this surviving spouse to share an extra amount of d s e over the basic amount congress was adding eight to that they were looking at thirteen ten people qualified and there's thirteen ten for service connected death and want to give those people an extra bonus if in addition to the service additional burden on the surviving spouse if there was not only a service connected death but also a total disability for eight years but it is going purposing on thirteen if you're totally disabled for ten years was totally disabled for ten years so even if they were not married to the veteran perhaps a veteran didn't have as much of an in there and income during those crappy years prior to their marriage that would have some effect on the spouse whether they had been married during that time or not the veteran having been disabled for such a long period of time would have an effect on that veteran's life or satirize that put an effect on the surviving spouse one term even if the spouse  is your argument that congress must give in the result in this case were your argument simply that will they may have made a big big but what they said is clear we have to follow what they said it's unclear why congress chose the eight years or eight to ten years or thirteen eighteen but it does make some sense that you get an additional add on for the eight years of disability and the eight years of marriage in either case whether it's under thirteen ten terms connected or under thirteen eighteen in their case you would qualify for the add on and it makes sense that on the