book call now appeal number zero six that's seven two three seventeen verses department of veterans affairs will certainly honor because it has to be seen and how the submission of what they're asking people or what they're going to last and develop is going to substantiate the close ups on other words what's wrong with this how to prove that it doesn't tell  what the impact of submitting the this evidence would but that's correct the impact of the negative that this was developed by the v a examination and what the impact would be of positive evidence that would contradict or counterbalance that veterans attorney or to that as a matter even if requested it well when requested it didn't take months and we eventually got a copy of this when we got the record on it but i cannot believe that i'm sorry it's a request to both the examining medical center and the regional offices that on completion of that examination we want to come right but even if we had gotten a copy of that we have no way of knowing v a is and to do with that particularly as it relates to the existing evidence that was in the records that have been previously siren or stand where you're saying obviously they're going to add to the stack of documents in this file and it will be effect that as long as it's intelligible to the veteran the type of evidence that's missing that that's enough for them but it doesn't say anything about impact or about the level detail or degree of specificity is nothing in in mayfield to that extent at all no see anything in the statutory language that would support what you're now saying that the impact assessment must be provided by the without telling them that what the impact of that is because the underlying proposition fifty one of the three is the evidence necessary to substantiate the claim or maybe that doesn't this you know not every claim is valid not every claim will will prevail if the evidence doesn't exist then presumably it can't be supplied because it isn't it's or in this case all that was at issue was does if this is from post traumatic stress disorder or is he isn't remotely detail that of advice based on a review of everything in the file and everything that potentially could be added to the pile which which is like this this is the evidence that is visited and if you suppose if you submit this evidence and i are how you can do that generally and not specifically that will substantiate the claim particularly when as of this you are not currently suffering from a disability post traumatic stress disorder mr governor you are saying basically that we need to have to notice provisions and one when the record is complete and another substantially complete application notice would be given right but some of fifty one of the three that's correct but it goes on to describe what that shall run include and it talks about any information any disorder and some of which said he didn't have the stress to sort out for now what is it that you imagine mr bean would have done or should have done if he had gotten a letter that you would have considered sufficient what would it have said and what would he then have done well obviously is dependent on what the v a tells him but presuming that the v a has asked him we have an examination that says if you correctly suffer from depression disorder and know now is it your view that we have to look at the december only one notice letter in a vacuum and that we're not allowed to look at it a decision that various levels which he cites in the second paragraph of his opinion and when i read the opinion together i read him as saying the to notice letters in the fall of zero one sufficient and they were all the more clearly sufficient in the context of all of the adjudicatory opinions all call home so that the veteran couldn't have been in doubt of what he needed he needed a positive policy of a labor substantially complete application of that can't be completely correct because congress made the notice provision applicable to pending cases many of which would obviously have already had an initial decision well going forward for new claims you would be right that the letter would proceed the first viewed occasion in the are up but for pending claimed it would involve some pending claims that would have already had an initial decision per force i says a veteran in the shoes of mr dean should have been told mr carpenter says that look at we have this current negative diagnosis assessed no p t s d and therefore despite the earlier ones that said yes or maybe ask you're going to lose unless you can find a private doctor or a v a doctor who's going to give you a positive diagnosis that yes you do currently suffer from the stress disorder well what what's so unreasonable about well it's not it's not extra that's well we're not we're not talking about the the veterans department being criticized if they did to my so you've got to talk about authorize who are really to focus on what they're required to give them the carbon he says they're required to tell him in the circumstances in this case that he needs a positive diagnosis because the most recent diagnosis is negative and the earlier ones are either ambiguous or to all so he's going to lose if he doesn't come in with a new current positive diagnosis and the only month or so well not what i read them in other words suppose that mr bean had been pro se at every step of the way until today so then we have to look at the letter he was sent in the fall of two thousand and one week from the standpoint of how would the average lay not a lawyer veteran be able to serve the letter and figure out what it meant what it implied what he now better did well that i think is intent where there is the first mention of ought to require and it is at least potentially possible when we look at the undisputed facts here and the kind of letter that you're sending out and ask ourselves does this comply with the statute and we don't have a complete letter here i don't what you and others have been turning here this afternoon as an impact statement has gone way beyond what the statute can fairly be read to require that i'm trying to come out of from the opposite standpoint where in page three or page for the more specific parts of this letter is there any kind of clear message that you need a positive diagnosis post traumatic stress but this is just generic that the first place that it talks about him and his case and his evidence as i read this letter is at the top of page three and the first mention one finds of p t s d is in the second line of the second bullet near the top of page three and nowhere do i see any language that says hey you better go out and get a private doctor and see if you can get a positive diagnosis currently suffering the stress disorder but but the statute seems to require there be made a distinction between what's already in the file and what would need to be added to the file or has the main burden of the notice here is what needs to be at it and then positive diagnosis superceded by a clear negative diagnosis q e d he needs to go get a positive current diagnosis or he's out of you but it's never told and then i can see in th junkie moving the court requirements well let me put it this way suppose we find the letter on its four corners deficient can you nevertheless win on the ground that the board's decision in two thousand and three gave them enough warning or any of the application in that he needs a medical exam to show with his p t s d does the veterans administration have an obligation to go to him and provide a medical exam or suggest to him that he should get a medical exam in other words or other continuing obligations on the part of the of the veterans administration after they send this fifty one o three a notice that i mean this is a very significant question that was part of our regulatory  are only required to get one of those at the time in which they get the application and regardless of what happens in the interim they're going to make their file decision without ever having told her that or any information any medical