it as a general principle that's correct as stated your problem is that when this claim was filed in one nine hundred seventy five this definition that you rely on didn't exist i grant that that is true but what happened here was that the in veterans court relied on that definition in its current analysis of whether there was a clear and unmistakable evidence in terms of whether the condition preexisted service and whether the condition was aggravated by service i think that's where the definition was applied in the government doesn't really dispute that the government disputes whether the veterans court actually relied on the definition and i think a different definition sho but if you look at the veteran sports opinion the court the lies on that definition and going through the two prong analysis of whether the condition of hypertension existed before service and whether there was any pending for about thirty years and i think part of the problem of the definition of court clive is that one is inherent in vegas if you read the definition itself it says that there's a range of a couple of ranges no specify which range was used in determining whether that was hypertension the forest service or whether it was aggravated during the service and i think when you look at the actual blood pressure readings that the court relied upon or look factual finding but our position is that the veterans courts reliance on that definition was legally rania's because it was different constat inconsistent with and vague us with respect to the definition that's in the regulations in addition to that the v a repeatedly misinformed mr ross about the type of evidence that he needed in terms of supporting his play in the air  v a should have afforded mr ross a medical opinion to determine whether his hypertension had preexisted service or had been aggravated during service so i think if you look at the that they don't satisfy the the definition of hypertension or being aggravated i think part of part of the issue here is that the v a looks to a nine hundred seventy four medical board opinion and says that proper support to deny mr ross claims i think there are two errors and that one simple fact is that it's a thirty year old opinion and i don't think that qualifies as competent evidence and to the second error and that is that the opinion itself necessarily doesn't include the river rest of mr ross's medical records so there's no way that the medical board of kenyon in hundred seventy four can speak to whether mr ross has hypertension has been aggravated by service because it has included the entirety of the record that was pending before the board and before the that the basic point here is that this is a thirty year old claim that's been pending for a long time it's been open and the v a really committed a serious procedural error by telling veteran no your honor i mean that i think it's a lie that well he says because they applied the wrong legal standard in terms of whether the error was harmless they applied an incorrect definition of the term hypertension i mean that's a legal error in that case in this case and i'm not asking this court to go ahead and make a separate determination of whether there was harmless error or not i think if you look at the record and if you look at the values that are present for mr ross it's pretty clear that there is a disconnect between the veteran scores finding hypertension or not and the actual values but the important point here is  definitions of hypertension and in the court of veterans claims says itself in the definition that the sites there are more than multiple definitions and whether the definition at the time was the same or not and i agree that might be an issue but the point here is that there is a legal error and the veterans courts analysis of whether the hypertension preexisted service and whether it was aggravated by service and that's tied to the tarrant definition of hypertension and whether whether you do that is willing to do the analysis of whether hypertension previous and service you might have to apply the definition that was done at that time of nine hundred seventy four but the question today is whether this hypertension has been aggravated or not and there that's a continuing analysis and the definition of hypertension may need change over time but that second prong of the analysis looks at the entire body of the medical record and definitely has to change in terms of the definition of hypertension that has to be updated and so when  at that second prime of the test you necessarily don't apply the old definition you apply the current definition and there's no dispute the good government doesn't dispute that the two definitions are in fact the case for the first prong of the test but for the second prong the question is whether is whether that condition the preexisting condition extreme with sumit preexisting was aggravated by service and the only way you can do that analysis is by looking at the entire body of mr ross medical evidence and that changes over time and the current medical understanding of what hypertension is changes over time and because this claims was an open pending claim in two thousand and six the v a was obligated to analyze whether at that time based on this current medical record on that time whether his hypertension had been aggravated by the service and i think that is the key area here because that is what completely makes the one hundred seventy board seventy four board opinion incompetent because it takes absolutely no consideration in terms of this his history of illness and that's also why you have to use a pair of deafness it would make sense to use an old definition to a sense whether ten years or five years or twenty years later his health was adversely affected by his time in service and maybe that with certain conditions the definition doesn't change or there's no need to look at subsequent medical records but here particularly with the condition such as hypertension where for the most part it's a symptom less condition which might only manifest in some chronic or acute conditions such as a stroke you necessarily have to look at the body of evidence and you have to update the definition into my rebuttal time so i'll reserve that this group for good morning good morning may appease the court by suggesting that this court look at the values and of the blood pressure readings they have who is suggesting that this court basically play doctor and that the veteran court was required to make a medical determination make a medical diagnosis of hypertension whether it applied to that grading schedule definition and i think underlying that assertion is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the grading schedule definition fits into a service connection decision now that the rating schedule definition comes into play when there's already been a diagnosis any case either the nine hundred seventy five version or the current version the reading schedule definition which was not there in one nine hundred seventy five is for on his andrus examination there was concern about his blood pressure there was a two day blood pressure reading there were notations that he had a chronic history of chest pain upon insertion all of these indicat that hypertension condition existing prior to entry into service and that was a specific finding bodies in the z medical board that the v a relied upon at the board and the veteran court relied upon and definition it certainly wasn't going to rely upon the v a definition because that was the navy medical board and not of the ape or their there would have been some medical diagnosis and so the doctor would have had some sense of what hypertension meant i don't think that there's anything in the record to suggest a specific diastolic pressure or a static pressure that if you're over that threshold automatically you have hypertension automatically you don't not being a doctor i'm not really sure what other factors there would be but there is no specific definition laid out in the navy medical board  is obviously some definition of hypertension was applied a medical definition done by medical experts doctors not the v a s or not the veterans court and the veterans court was not required to make a medical finding it was required to look at the evidence before it determined whether that evidence was clear and unmistakable and it does so and that is the finding  fact as applied to law and not review by this court the question is whether that the legal question is whether it is required to use this reading schedule definition in evidence is sufficient for adequate determination there is no need to get additional medical opinion because medical opinion have with contemporaneous with the actual diagnosis it in fact did have data about whether it may have the specific finding about preexisting service it made a specific finding that it was not aggravated by service and there were additional data that suggested that this should by virtue of its age be found incompetent in fact this is at the time was when there was the best available evidence as to what was happening during service and what his service would have done in all these opinions that talks about whether his hypertension was actually aggravated but there isn't any that discuss his medical records past nine hundred seventy five and with a condition such as hypertension where he has a long history of medical records that in part speak to it i think it's required to get a medical opinion to determine whether that factual finding is  and the veterans court necessarily had to apply some criterion to determine whether his subsequent medical records demonstrated aggravation and the veterans the government's attorney said felt that that was something as a medical doctor diagnosed it has to be done by doctor the board never looks at any medical opinion that talks to the aggravation problem with respect to subsequent medical records the veterans court has to reassess that analysis because the board itself recommends the wrong standard reviewed the board mentioned preponderance of the evidence and so the veterans court had to go back look at the actual values and make its own independent assessment of whether mr ross has hypertension had been aggravated and before it was a long history of medical records i can't stand before you and tell you whether those medical records suggester mean that his hypertension was aggravated enough that something that has to be done by a medical doctor or physician some expert mr ross was never given that opportunity the board and the court made his own factual determination and when the court did sell it necessary to rely on a definition of hypertension that put forth in this opinion the definition is itself is ambiguous so we really don't know what the veterans court did and when they looked at each independent value of the blood pressure readings we don't know which ones to constitute hypertension in the court's opinion and which ones don't and i think you know at the end of the day mr ross might have not have a claim but here our point is that we don't know what the veterans court did we do know that they cited a definition of hypertension that conflicts with what's in the regulations and we know that there is no medical opinion in the record that talks to