word clear or clearly to modify the word air or that physician was simply preparing a discharge summary of the veteran's hospitalization there's no indication the record disposition which you've been aware of in th update on the original diagnosis doctors have to use legal words when the veterans affairs department wishes to require time that doctor's opinion to sever a previously awarded benefit misapplied because the agency relied on a medical opinion that did not state that original diagnosis was clearly erroneous has there a legal question here there certainly is the legal question is the veterans courts interpretation of three point one could meet a legal test it would be if there was any dispute in the record as to whether a physician or other medical professional had found that that the original diagnosis was clearly erroneous the veterans court acknowledge this record that from a physician or other medical professional that the original diagnosis was clearly erroneous and absent something in the record that arguably states clear error or clearly erroneous than the veterans court necessarily severance namely that doctor or other medical professional you state that the original diagnosis was clear if that's what the regulation me because there is no such opinion before the agency and i see except one that is a matter of absence of so so you take him at his word it's an error i didn't make the test so it's outcome determinative he wins because that that was the medical court finds that no magic words are necessary neither certification nor claire no you are because there's a third problem and that is the requirement the regulation that the determination be made by a connection it was simply a discussion of the of the veteran's state of disability at the time of the separation from the hospital well that's what you want doctors to do you don't want doctors to shoot at a regulation and say i'm going to get this person past that break say which is that service connection may be severed if the doctor finds that the original diagnosis was not correct if that's how regulation read today then likely there will be no case here however the secretary amended not ever looked back at the original diagnosis and reached the conclusion that that original diagnosis was erroneous clearly erroneous whatever  real problem you have to deal with this why isn't that an equivalent of certification why isn't that sufficient to meet the standards of the regulation is found by the  and it says clearly that a doctor passed a look at the original diagnosis and conclude that it's clear read that it happened here yes it is where where does it say that dr keller looked at the original diagnosis and determined that it was clare dr look at the original diagnosis which sways a schizophrenia reaction and she found  of this regulation disorder but but that seems to me that the board is making the determination that there's a clear the board the one that's saying this is the equivalent of clear or did th doctor dr keller look at that original diagnosis and say oh that's claire and i hereby certify that effect the doctor attested in writing that the original diagnosis was erroneous burden of proof being upon the government in the original appeal to the board the government fully established that and the board made factual findings which are not contested at any stage that this always had a personality disorder he had an aggressive passive aggressive personality in the evidence was overwhelming that that is what he had always had further t found is that the stations were manifestations of their personality disorder so these factual findings and then yeah the hospital report upon which you are relying include a summary of the facts findings and reasons determined i'm assuming now per second that there's an error that we've hypothetically reached the conclusion that the certification didn't take place for maybe the wrong diagnosis and this is based on extensive hospitalization records also the fact that the very original diagnosis that was based on incomplete  center revealing facts which we can't do right and just as a matter of law is there a problem here with certification if it wasn't if there's an error in that certification and would that be outcome determinative if indeed essentially if we were to rule that you need to save clear and ask that that there's no therapy cation certifications acquired by the regulation in the absence of a certification if there had any reason why there would be any different result on sending back in and see as support in the veterans court pointed out in your opinion on this matter all of the diagnosis and all the other doctors everyone was in agreement that this that had a personality disorder i guess i'm on that point too i guess i was troubled by the courts by the references to it seemed to me in the context of determining whether or not this was an adequate certification it was consideration of additional evidence the other statements by the other physicians and i had a hard time seeing why blatantly obvious that any reasonable person who flew there is an error in other words so that's the equivalent that's the additional what what more clearance when it modifies the term correct yes and  so therefore wife we apply that same standard in the news in the news this clear error in regulation why shouldn't we say that it is different clear the word clear does have meaning does mean something that diagnosis were made in place it's not a record because it post dates the board decision here but he continues to have a diagnosis of schizophrenia reaction or schizophrenia to this day but that's not the point is this since he was a personality disorder that does not mean he did not have schizophrenia reaction they are distinct psychiatric disabilities that can co exist now for some medical determination however it's disingenuous to say that the better just because come up in the regular court i mean obviously you wouldn't be hearing a q plan so my question to you with what different what edition of bird specifically do you think is on you when your client given that we're not here in the ordinary course of the appeal what does that mean in the context of your any new medical opinion that they would come up with saying that original in service gets a frantic reaction diagnosis was clearly erroneous so if the federal court did misinterpret a regulation or service prejudicial error and there would be new or official statement in direct response to the regional offices request for sort of occasion opposing counsel is referring to the ultimate conclusion of the veterans court that the equivalent statements