change the statute with move on i agree your honor and it's not our argument that it does although it i mean haven't all courts interpret and interpreting final judgment in twenty four twelve and not appealable and that usually means the tide for appeal or further review is right doesn't it correct our position is that there the time for people had not run so even though it's a final order question which you seem to agree that the parties could alter the time for appeal in the consent judgment but i gave you a hypothetical where there agreed to alter that the types of the appeal by saying no appeal could be filed at all and he said that still didn't do anything i mean you may be right that the statutory peel period is a statutory appeal period at the veterans court can't change that by rule and the parties can't change that by agreement filings when there's been a voluntary dismissal question as well that would a part of consent judgment assume it does it says at least where the order of dismissal does not specifically prohibit appeal so at least get i think that's true or and what we're trying to argue here is that particularly in a case where you have an article one court where you have that reference court veteran ought to get that additional benefit of the doubt but i don't know if this is a record up but what part of this litigation did you apply for each of these before the proceedings before that us court leading up to the joint motion to government's case is not prejudiced at all in fact they did not object to our interviews the veterans court did and that's why we had the oral arguments of the court how much are we talking about relatively little units in the range of about three thousand dollars know i'm interrupting you but in terms of interpreting twenty four twelve the courts of generally held the final judgment it's final and not appealable right not appealable is usually means the time for appeal is exhausted including an order of settlement that's the language of the statute and allegedly fishery goes on to explain that it's clear that ija intends for the thirty day period to begin on the date of an order of settlement and any settlement is appealable on the issue appreciate your opportunities or find that you're on the it in the context of veterans were practice that's precisely what we have here this is this is what a summit in fact a vast majority of settlements look like in a veterans court case and it's not like respect to a particular issue one that they were at the statute wrongly and one might think that what they meant by settlement was a settlement of the entire case i understand your honor and that's precisely what we have here that's the thing this isn't a settlement it maybe i understand i know the v somebody filed an appeal the veteran filed an appeal within the time for appeal that i agree to this under duress would you argue that that appeal for that means that the judgment was still appealable within a certain time period and so it didn't become final until that period for appeal expired even though on i know exactly what you're saying that they never agree to settlements that pay out benefits at the veterans court because the secretary thanks that they don't do that but it's the obligation of the board or benefits decide service connection issues and the  they may be right that just means that the settlement process is not something that can happen at the better court it doesn't mean we should alter our definition of set up if it completely ends litigation that's the issue and that's when it doesn't  the ninety day was right it again if it were like a voluntary dismissal yes they could still do that if it's if it's a if it's a some an agreement murtha joint motion and they're saying we've agreed to settle this case  motion and that fees are to be borne by the parties for these proceedings they would await their right to file each of these and we would have to be worrying about this right and i think the parties could do that but they're not white aren't they i mean the veterans court answers and to hundreds if not thousands of these motions still remain and every year are the parties enter into them before the bench or why doesn't the secretary have a practice of determining whether it's going to allow  to again this completely ends litigation because it's a federal case and we're case there's no more federal litigation we understand that the that proceedings continue with the board but it is dawney completely case it is a slightly separate issue but on the authority there's authority throughout the circuits including the ninth circuit including this court's decision in taylor gran's where courts have consistently recognize that when a party consents to  distinguish between agreement as to the formal agreement of the substance and so you can have situations in which the reason appeal hermite consent judgment and what we've said in presently is we're not going to decide this on a case by case basis we're going to say that there's a possibility of an appeal in some circumstances what is the situation where there's either us entire settlement or or an agreement not to appeal we're going to apply a blanket rule and i guess i come back to the question why would you distinguish between a voluntary dismissal for that purpose and a consent charge meant putting aside your argument about the settlement language let's lose why would you distinguish between a consent which can be appealed sometimes and a voluntary dismissal which can be appealed sometimes well if this is not an instance of a form versus substance  certainly the case here is that it's not it's not appealable and except in these really remote circumstances it and i mean we've cited there are thousands of cases we're not aware of any such circumstance and the same circumstances would apply and what the ramifications are going to be here i mean if we went with your rule that consent judgments are different and somebody was but you agree that in some circumstances an appeal can be filed within the time period if somebody has mi i can't speak to to what might happen at the veterans court in that scenario but that's exactly the kind of thing we were trying to foreclose and press there in establishing uniform rule and what's wrong with the uniform rule that says you know in any kind of see why the board and the court at the veterans court can't do the same thing there's nothing that prevents the board from acting on the veterans court mandate even if there's still a potential appeal to us is there nothing legally the court's decision and westfall takes takes the view and it seems to be a correct view that if if the appeal period is to running it is not appropriate for us to issue to many the court essentially give a man a couple and said you know what you should mandate but because there has been where it's kind of intermediate appellate court it does not have this this discretionary search process hanging over it where you know the practically for parties proceed is to follow the court's judgment but there is this remote possibility which was what one one final point to make briefly is i just want to be clear for the record that are understanding is this is not a matter of money coming out of the veterans you know only the veteran receive benefits on a forward going basis the only time that