thank you very much thank you very much your honor may please the court kind of carpenter appearing on behalf of mr kevin george the error of the veterans court in this case was its reliance upon this court's decision in jordan although this court's decision in jordan was based upon a change in the law this court's decision in jordan does not apply to this court's decision controls and there was no change in the law as a result of this court's decision and wagner the a v does not apply either your honor because the wagner case does not represent a change in the law the jordan case does represent a case of a change in the law and if mr george's allegation of said and that it was so such a clear understanding the law that it was the true state of the law at the time of the initial decision do i understand that correctly y done i think you simply recognize it for what it is as this court did in jordan this court recognizes that the v a s general counsel had corrected the mistake in interpretation made by the secretary when he promulgated that regulation he issued a presidential opinion which invalidated that regulation because the secretary's interpretation was in direct conflict with the plain and an a analysis of what it was that the statute said and if the statute was as this statute is so unquestionably plain on its face that there were two specific requirements imposed by congress upon the secretary before the presumption of soundness could be rebutted then the interpretation or the plain language of the statute controls and supersedes any interpretation that would have been made by the secretary to the contrary but i would also suggest your honor that your concern is is i don't wan founded but but less likely to come up in the future simply because the facts of this case are such that we have a judicial interpretation unquote the initial interpretation of section one hundred and eleven and so therefore our court treated that regulation as an official interpretation resulted in denying mr jordan a cue claim in that instance because changes in interpretation of the law are outside the scope of what can be considered a valid claim honor i agree with everything that you said i simply differentiate that the interpretation that was made by the secretary in his regulation was the the that was the regulation for v a q rather than b v a q which was discussed in da v and then was found to be a valid regulation based upon that change in the language the question here mr mr carpenter again quite follow what you said and i want to make sure i do understand what you're saying are you saying that there is some kind of same oh yes they are your honor and they are to be applied the same way what i am saying is is that the prohibition that exists in those two regulations about change in the law applies when you attempt to make an allegation of q as was done in jordan based upon that change in the law that is not what mr george's allegation of  it be imputed to have been as the veterans court did mr george's allegation of q was based soley upon the failure of the between really bad interpretations of the statute and then fair but ultimately deemed incorrect interpretations of the statute all we said there was there that regulation that the v a had a change in interpretation of that stature and in jordan we said you cannot get a q through that change in interpretation and in fact as i understand the where you want to get to under these circumstances honor i think that the my response is to part st i would respectfully disagree with the characterization of what happened in jordan and jordan really wasn't about what happened in one thousand one hundred and eleven jordan was soley about what happened with the regulation itself the only issue the only allegation is q and that was that the regulation one invalidated it that invalidation was retrospectively the court in jordan didn't pass at all ignored the nd half of the statute in fact if you look at the ratings decision at issue here it's clear that they didn't apply the statute at all they required as an int of stablish ing in service aggregation which is not a new cause of action it creates a new entitlement benefits and that's clearly not what happened here one thousand one hundred and eleven has not changed and wagner's interpretation of it although in our opinion is not entirely relevant to the it won't apply to cases where the judgment final judgment has been entered so i hope you understand the important question which is really that should should we have to look for express intent from congress in a decision then you know that would be a change of interpretation so i don't think it's i don't think we need to look for explicit intent from congress here  stated that that there was an initial interpretation and so by guys decision on the interpretation of one thousand one hundred and eleven must be considered a change in interpretation in light of d the court in this case acknowledged that new interpretations of law only have retroactive effect on decisions open on direct review and do not apply in the context of  specific changing in law but i don't think that's a reference to that militia says that the provisions of the section that is cu the secretary and the board issued the decisions and martin and george and that valid binding regulation controls the decisions in those cases and a later different honor there are a couple of places in the decision a this court and enjoys also acknowledged that where the regulations in place at the time of the original decision imposed a different rule does not apply and  and saying that there was a change in  i think there is also arguably distinguishes between sort of the the regular regulatory interpretation versus the statutory interpretation but the court in regulatory interpretation of the law in contrasted with a regulatory interpretation of just one last quick question i'm just wondering if you're aware of any other another traditional interpretation of the statute can get retroactively applied to final judgment i don't know if it's something like it could be anything social security benefits criminal law an congress created a remedial statute there is no reason that the intent of congress should be abrogated by the dispute that has been created by the  of a change in interpretation does not to say that a change in interpretation is not a bar is but the question here goes to whether or not the allegation of q made exclusively upon the statute can be impeded from being successful because of an action taken by the v a s general counsel to correct a clear mistake by the secretary in writing a regulation that directly contradicted the plain meaning of the statute as interpreted by this court in wagner and as a result the remedial effect of the intent of congress needs to be acknowledged and this court needs to reject the impediments to allowing for the remedy of the collateral attack when there is as in this case a decision made  didn't apply the regulation and the government suggests that somehow the regulation applied even though the board never relied upon the regulation the board in fact attempted the rely upon a different statute a statute that