more we have one case this morning which is number seven twelve seventy seven moved for two reasons drawn the first one is that it's still a live controversy in the sense that if the court were to take the case and decided and the public favor then it would go down and there's still the issue of whether the veterans court would issue interim benefits when the words are still partial that meat that's possible in the case so that part makes it still alive controversy and there's an interim benefits before the board review of the individual plaintiffs in a non class action situation has to show a likelihood of repetition with respect to him individually this was not a class action case how is this likely to re out once again and then do it again and again i think that's the very concept that people read not necessarily moved out and if you raise the issue if it happens again you can raise the issue very well in a hearing here before you get a hearing before appeal and we're entitle to hear it that's the language any appeal we're told to hearing of course or entitle to hearing after if it gets it i begin to remember that's a chain of events so we don't know whether it's going to happen or not that there has to be some likelihood that this individual would have the same issues arise in his case in the future and the question is you know under the case argue that the first point that i thought i mentioned that it's still alive controversy that there still partial relief that could be granted i just don't see how you preserve it to me it was i mean i don't know wh you when you have to preserve issues for appeal you're asking us to order the veterans corps to reconsider its refusal to order a hearing based on a new standard there's no reason for us to do that because the veterans court particularly appropriate even if you disagree to shake your head and i tell just run but it's an advisory opinion you've gotten a hearing and so we can correct the standard going forward but it's not going to apply to this particular hearing previous cases and involving this including that month case what what's the issue here there seem to be substantial delays from the time th his notice of disagreement until the statement of the case and then substantial glaze between the filing of the state of the case an adjudication by the board what's the source of these  hearing but i think it would be helpful cos to have a broader perspective of what the problems are with this that's a good question your honor i i believe that the v a lacks a solid central structure that what's happening is you have a couple people and top management leaders trying to implement policy and then everyone else try to implement it and it's fragmented there's third the planning it is flawed often it's poorly executed and if i were to do it if i were to have say i would say that to me i mean we're talking about mammoths a man of bureaucracy and when you need i would say to me of maybe twenty just outstanding outstanding that's not what our job to do that what i'm trying to understand is what is the source of the problems that cause that the way in the system is the lack of resources lack of application of those resources to solve these problems what's there is any agency yet that has the credibility to go to congress and ask for more money it's there the way i would think you would need more judges that are available to do it that has more equipment statistics i mean if they're if they can crease to that number that's good but at least the last report i have from two thousand and fifteen shows sixty three ok i apologize i don't know i'm not this is the on the record i mean i'm not criticizing for you but i mean if you think there are that many more maybe they've done something in the last year to increase the numbers i don't know why i get somewhere i read maybe maybe the secretary will have some further information in this case the three banks who requested a video conference didn't get an answer requested again and didn't get an answer requested a third time and finally got an answer that took seventeen months case that well you're you know we hear these things on a first come first serve basis so we can't really estimate when you might have a hearing it seems to me that kind of response should be something that the it could generat among is that typically what it what we've done is we file a petition there is an order and then somebody and general counsel of picks up the phone and calls someone at the regional office and they is it ten years i mean it's certainly ten years right if you're taking ten years to give a veteran who's seeking benefits ten years and the courts kind of step at i think that would be a lot easier situation for the court to find it  applying is a very restrictive standard which basically means there's never going to be relief under the circumstances well your honor i think a lot of what happened is going on with the timing and to go back to the question of your honor is asking what it was the cause of the delays what's going on why is the department of veterans affairs different than the other agencies of the d c circuit is evaluating and the ministry of action or needs is that there is a lack of resources at the v a right now that there's we have to side in the briefs that there's no resources problem actually that the testimony there's newer testimony now that i'm going to point to your honor's because i sure your honour's are aware of the veterans appeals improvements modernization act that was just passed by congress and there's a very helpful house report this is house report one fifteen one thirty five from this year basically what we have had what in the past was a backlog of claims for the our o the house report notes that the increase of of appeals is now at four hundred and seventy thousand appeals as of march thirty four first two thousand and seventeen along with this house report that i think is very helpful o report discussing the implementation of the changes that will be made in modernization act and that is from march twenty third twenty seven team if you're honest would like me to attach the g a o report and this house report to the back of our submission  what's going on is that at the our level an individual is going to have three different options as to how to proceed once they get at station that is it's not in their favor one would be to jump straight to the board another one would be to go to the normal process of having a higher level row person take a look at the claim another one would be to submit a supplemental claim with new evidence to support your actual previous claim the congress ho pending at the board there are four hundred seventy thousand and appeals as of march thirty first twenty seventeen that's listed in the house report i mean how can the board leadership think it can competently do its job when there are four hundred thousand cases for sixty judges how many decisions the year does that mean they have to get i'm not sure of the actual number that would be more math that i can do in my head your honor but certainly this is assuming that there are no further appeals to the board not how long would it take the board to resolve the cases the four hundred thousand cases that it now has before well i mean that's it that's a difficult i could be wrong you can you can give us all these statistics and you are reply i mean the problem here is in a particular mandamus case you're going to come in and argue well he's being treated the same as everybody else but it's some point that treatment of they've got granted a class action for five years ago i think in california are somewhere out west and the secretary of the department of justice got that key squashed because it said the court the veterans court and our court or the only case we did have a testing of this new monetization finder stand correctly that the new act does nothing to alleviate the problem of the lay of the board other than reducing the number of cases coming from the where congress is trying to do is stop there from being a bubble in the at the beginning so there's not pushed up in effect the board the veterans court you know going to understand that much desirable but the doesn't resolve the problem  delays even with the existing four hundred thousand cases at the board level it does nothing to alleviate that problem right chances are that those individuals who are not directly benefit from  act is implemented is that your position that if the government says it's the board says well we'll get around to your appeal as as we can we hear cases on a first come first basis we have a huge backlog and we'll get around to it as soon as we can so that satisfies a standard test well that is what the board found here and even if that means that there won't be a hearing for five years or ten years well you are i mean that certainly at a certain point there could be difficulties with with withstand i plan right that's correct your honor but if we're looking at the case that's before us right now what we have was we had a three year wait which is a long time obviously or others but that that hearing has occurred so what i was talking about was suppose we issued a writ of mandam directing that these cases either in this case or some other case that these these cases at the board level ground hearing within six months after the filing of the statement the case what would the v a do i think the brigadier would be overwhelmed i don't think it has the resources to undertake such a monumental task your honor i mean the three year wait is not because the judges are sitting on their hands to have a backlog that they're and thing i think that you know i mean we're not faulting the judges oh absolutely i mean the judges do their job they throw out a lot of cases but this lower number of poor judges has been around for border almost inexcusable for way too long and yet you're coming here and i'm not feeling you know but i'm frustrated that the v a has no plans to deal with the problems at the border now their plans are let's with a similar argument saying that he had disagreements with the benefits that he did receive so he wanted to continue his case and this court found that the case was still moot even though there was a possibility that he would be going to v a to deal further with his claim because there was regular caliper seizures to deal with that and similarly along that lines perhaps it's all just one point is that if he's not sure i'm not sure that that is an answer to this because the appellate procedure would be to to raise it other words you don't get into those type of relief until you prove that there's been an unreasonable to lay on the threshold so if i just might if you know since it's ten pages not a lot if i could just if you get the  second half just address it just because this case is so important i just hate to see it go away on a move this issue i've got several cases pending and i'm sure that by the time reason is that the main it never gets decided that way because what's happening again in mt talks about it is that when you file a writ up until now with the with the with the what the  and we gave them a year to reach that goal they would do it so that's the way they've been operating you think they can do it with sixty judge well they'd need a higher judge it's or do they have the resources to do it can they can they achieve that through the fund reprogramming though the resources exist those are relevant considerations under the mandamus standard in the d c circuit and we don't know what the what that when you say that that's a good point we don't know what the facts are and i think the importance of track as opposed to christiane's as it gives some transparency in this analysis no words it may well be that if you remand this case and the veterans court says ok let's go through some of the factors you say you have limited resources show me you know make a showing say we just can't do it can't can't meet standard maybe we had the funds to begin they can just reprogram money and doubled the size of the board i mean i mean the other problem is if they have to double the size of the full word in a year are they going to find enough competent people to actually be good arguments to me should be made under that the tract the truck analysis i mean the problem with that and to me the standard i do find the standard of that of course applying a little bit restrictive but it's not so much the standard but the humanly impossible they can't do it i would like to at least have a showing i mean that's that's fair i mean that's what track says fair ok if you you don't have the resources maybe you used your resources unwisely some think but i