second the veterans court failed to address this course case law defining the v a s antecedent duty to sympathetically and literally construe the scope of a veteran's claim for compensation benefits even regulation requires that there be and is to turn to apply for benefits and in this case there clearly was an intent to apply for the benefits because the veteran filed an application for competition benefits in you service connection for p t s d or for some from diabetes or whatever condition but that's not reality that's not what veterans do they found an application for compensation and they put you know  treatment dates and they state you know generally with why there is a current which is later defined in other things like hearings and there notices susan says i want compensation and the evidence of record including his claims and medical evidence of record and his testimony and so forth if that reasonably raises a claim for a a particular condition that he did not specifically mention in its claim then that raises the claim itself and it identifies the benefit is identified so what's your contentions form as we require a specific identification from the condition veteran is not a medical professional and a lot of times the condition that he claims is not really ends up getting a service connection for a while i am sick his nature sickness disease or injuries which decline is made and how he describes the vascular disease and what you are saying is that later on when the p t s d information came out it's how he he should be treated as though he he put that in box s statement well it would have the same effect as listing him but he does say service aggravated and that you know what in service activated it was developed you know later in developing the current and v a has a duty to sympathetically and literally developed a claim and in this case there's a plethora of evidence that he was suffering from p t s d or from a mental disorder and that that's what aggravated his heart condition are you familiar with the recent decision in young knuckle fangio well it says that the p t s d has to be robertson thirteen eighty four where the court says it once a veteran submits evidence of a medical disability and makes a claim for the highest rating possible and additionally evidence of unemployed billeted the identity of the event if it's operate querent of section three point one five five a is met and then of course later cases have stated that better the identity of the benefit sought was met by the evidence of record that showed that he was suffering from symptoms of p t s d and medical at least of a mental disorder with it was the list of things the third legal or that the court of appeals for veterans claims made was that it failed to address the veterans arguments based upon the case law which which we had brought up before the court and also raised before the fourth of the veterans court failed to apply the proper legal standard for determining what  really meant to the previous required where the b v a failed to address all the pertinent case law and the veteran's arguments based on that case law and sifts the veterans court failed to apply the proper legal thirty eight u s c section seventy two sixty one and a provides that the veterans court is required to decide all relevant questions of law to the extent necessary to its decision and when presented and here it did not do that and in three different ways first as an i r s user the single judge memorandum decision or the order from the three judge panel provide any indication if the veterans court considered  by the appellant both before the court and the board concerning that law and thirdly it did not consider the veteran's arguments to the context of q whether or not there was only one reasonable interpretation that could have been drawn from the evidence that they had at hand now in this case i want to know what the legal standard this is and and to make a judgment as to whether it's consistent with  the veteran has to indicate in some way that he's suffering from p t s d and wants compensation for those benefits by saying that he's been attending therapy sessions and needs to have compensation for that therapy that he is suffering in terms of lack symptoms i'd like compensation for the symptoms yes your honor in some way shape or form maybe not in those exact words but he needs to express to the v a that he needs compensation for those symptoms posing so they can help can you help me then yes the at that point boyd as it did sympathetically consider his claims but in the facts of this case that wasn't the case he did mention that he had suffered from battle shock back in the one nine hundred sixty s based on his experience in vietnam but he did so in terms seeking compensation for his aggravated heart condition his claim was you know i'm at the police department i hesitate to put in for this because i don't want to be writing me for the rest of my life which is essentially what he said in the hearing  say what compensation for the in those cases seem to say well you've got to treat that as a formal one right well even under the rover simelane of cases your honor that is a and at issue of application of logic facts because whether or not the evidence you know it's not we're dealing with what the standards of the standards as well we can't just describe symptoms he's also say that i want compensation for those symptoms that the legal requirements that is being imposed here the question is whether discusses the interplay between the duty to sympathetically developed claims and what that means for the v a the court has a similar analysis and robinson robinson versus shinseki which is that five five seven s or one three five five cases what happened was that the veteran with seeking medical compensation for a medical disability and seeking the highest rating available to the veteran and also submitting evidence of an employee ability all three of those things combined this court h was evidence sufficient to constitute the element of intent necessary for section three point one five five a month ago this is the government's position by seeking compensation for heart now no your honor that is not the case and in fact the board and a fifteen page analysis went through mr branson previous psychological history and i would like to go back to young and which which was just  issued last month and which this court first said does not have jurisdiction to review factual findings that want to disability with claims or service connection established but more relevant to your question interpreted regulation thirty eight c f r three point three zero four at which said that service without being able to speak to every set of circumstances that might be come before the b p a in this court i will say in this particular set of circumstances the board examined all of the evidence that was available to it and in this case without having an actual mormon says i you know you well to the extent there's a legal issue about whether or not section three point one five three point one five five a conflict with the rovers and comber and movie line of cases that's simply not the case the court addressed that issue  ellington versus in that particular case the veteran had applied for leukaemia benefits in one nine hundred ninety and listed on a form diabetes and hypertension as secondary symptoms of that claim and then later the veteran filed an informal plane for diabetes and hypertension even later he wanted an earlier effective date for service connection for diabetes and hypertension based on the fact that he had listed those at symptoms of his earlier condition and this court held that that was the quintessential application of lot of facts over which it doesn't have jurisdiction so that to me illustrate a certain ellington versus p which can which the citation is five for one third one three six for federal circuit two thousand and eight and it was cited by you know but it's not just facts the question is whether the standard that's being applied is a legal standard and that is whether the veteran has to say you're my symptoms i want compensation for or where there are insufficient for him to say you're my for a heart condition and he mentioned experiences in vietnam because they are what he claimed aggravated his heart condition now in one thousand nine hundred eighty nine when he thought that he needed compensation for p t s d the v a then conducted a medical examination and just to briefly address you other issues that came up to the extent mr branson argues that the v a and the board didn't consider case law they did consider hodge and moody and that line of cases that can be found in the record at page ninety eight and  well established that even when a court does not explicitly mention one of the but again arguments that does not necessarily mean that the court didn't consider it because the court has a lot of different issues that go into writing an opinion for example there may have been of communication not i don't want an intense something that he's got to communicate well actually the regulation provides doesn't even have to be the veteran's intent to state you know identify it by name but he has to provide the evidence or at least provided sufficient information that a sympathetic reading would find them and but all these these issues that we're discussing here the problem is that i tried to raise there's issues before the court of appeals for veterans claims and they refused to address them and that's the same thing that happened in the board of veterans of us they the problem is that they are required to address these issues because they are under the statute  necessary to a decision and they are presented before the court and it didn't address these and that's the underlying problem there in this case the veterans court is trying to evade this court's jurisdiction by ignoring the court's president decisions as in harris the court is trying to avoid review of its decision by this court by pretending the case only involves a factual dispute despite the fact that the veteran is clearly raised the legal issues posed before the veterans court and the b v a alone twenty years ago this month off the search operation has demonstrated that there is a vast gap between the theory in the practice of judicial review and it is that gap which appears to be frustrating the original intent behind the veteran judicial review act and the implementation of the goals of meaningful judicial review he said i believe my message is clear there is i suggest no system of judicial review which has within it a component part free to function its own way and its own time and wit message to those it disappoints take an appeal that is unafraid what we have today and many of the departments and agencies original jurisdiction i would suggest that there are now exists a vast deal like i told your of your time and i don't think