prosecuted claim following successful representation before them the court below in an appeal of an adverse board decision in this record it is clear that mr snyder was continuously representing mr brock during the entirety of the appeal procedure as it continued below before the agency following his successful representation accord there was an anomalous a vent which took place as form and they were recognized by the v a which automatically under v a procedures revoked mr snyder's representation during the course of that brief representation they made a claim relative to the matter  that was continuing before the agency within the one year an appeal period of the initial decision on the initial rating as a consequence of that was part and parcel of the continuing case for mr bro under the correct interpretation of fifty nine zero four mr brooks representation by mister snyder was on interrupted this goes not to whether or not the v a recognized him for a brief period of time or failed to recognize him but whether or not he had a continuing relationship under the fee agreement that was properly entered into under fifty nine zero forty six the lord supposing that instead of coming back into the case  the correct analysis that was the analysis that was made by the court below ok right analysis is whether or not under fifty nine zero four this is the same case and it is the same case because even under your hypothetical even if a new attorney had come truth if for example in october there has been supposing in july there was a p t s d claim it was in october there was a claim for injury to unless needs some other physical but also service related is the problem with that still be part of the same case that mr snyder because it was within the year with no mr snow machine because it wasn't part of the board's decision that was the predicate for the representations under the prior version of fifty nine zero four which was in place at the time that the fee agreement was entered into in this case there had to be a first final board decision on a case that case was limited to the psychiatric disability for post traumatic stress disorder and in that context then no other cases or no other planes would be part of that representational agreement or the entitlement for mr snyder to collect the fee but if there had been a void decision let's say without representation by any correct dropping and that's the important distinction here is that mr brooks case was about his entitlement to pass to benefits for his her ward of compensation for post traumatic stress disorder there was of that case that would have justified even though they framed it as a twenty and for increased there was no claim for increase because the rating had not become final because the rating had not become continued and as part of the appeal that mr snyder correctly and kindly introduced in november of two thousand and three that continued the case that had begun with the initial board denial that was successfully overturned by the veterans court and sent back for review occasion and mr brook was granted benefits as a result of that successful representation and that case continued until he received the maximum benefits and that case has been continuing through two thousand and fifteen and there have been two subsequent awards after the initial war when mr snyder was paid for this interim award of relatively short period of time and then two subsequent periods that go all the way back to nine hundred ninety six for a total rating all of those are part of the case that commence with the first they have twenty four we disagree hypothetically and pursuing years prior it was part of mr brooks continuing case and case has been defined by this court in several cases that have  term case under fifteen i know full if it was part of that case the action taken for what the v f w referred to as reopened for increase was not in fact i  reopening or a claim for increase it was a challenge to whether or not the correct rating had been decided and the proper action was the action that mr snyder took which was the filing of a notice of disagreement with the initial clear that it's really the efforts of lawyer number two that has succeeded in convincing the v a to increase the rate with all due respect your honor the efforts of mr carpenter in the second instance are irrelevant to whether or not there is a valid fee agreement under fifty nine o four there is no new claim no new action because it's part of a continuously prosecuted claim it is mr the twenty percent cap your honor relates only to the amount that with it will be withheld and that the amount of the fee must be less than twenty percent if it's twenty percent or less then the amount of that  ok they kept under the statute is that it must be reasonable and by regulation the v a has said that if you agree with the calls for more than one third of the amount of passive benefits is relationship a relationship is nowhere in the rules first of all we do not deny that if mr snyder were to establish service connection for example even using the v f w use  mr brooks condition rather had increased severely they also examined other records of the v a there were two thousand three the two thousand three time frame and recognizing that he had he then had suffered an increase they determined that one hundred percent of veterans of a mistreatment awards in two thousand and three minus the thirty percent theater even getting time to be approximately nine months it took for him to get that award that my mom's times that times that delta is what we're fighting about here and is not is not we're not saying this is a minimize rule in place we're simply saying that is a right line between a very small area we're carving out here as being a separate claim that was one on the counter by the good effort and the july two thousand and two plan and why what is it that tells us that he's wrong in saying it's the same case with this case and this court rather a court of veterans claims as long as so she is a work case with claim and that makes sense lawyers are recognized for their work on claims paid for their work on board decisions involving issues but this court has never suggested that the case mean something other than the client in this court's coll mr carpenter the promise seemed to be a promise was that this is a different claim mr carpenter is not provided any reason for suggesting this was a different claim this court is physics play and interest and jackson in other cases is that what you do when you're in parsing  was not a new claim because it concerns a very disability claim that had been issue all along which included an effective date and a rating in this case the effective date and the rating is unique to the period two so the notice must be given with respect to him taking into account the type of claim at issue so sort sort of atomic particles of all cases are claims and underneath those issues need those evidence what said here there wasn't that it was associated with a pending claim that was the claim for the two thousand three increased to one hundred percent and there is nothing that prevents it in the court as consider the board has considered it in connection with the other pending claim as well drew where he was examined by the v a in two thousand two and found have only mildly look at them for a moment there was no october two thousand and two opening of a new claim and then in april of two thousand and three there was no examination that then led to the may two thousand and three for one hundred percent rate then under those circumstances that would relate back to the one thousand nine hundred three claim right it would time frame that this onset if you actually read the evidence is not precise but that's getting into sort of medical fact finding the president of the denim were simply allowed that because the veterans administration is the only regional office that early granted a same benefit maybe because an argument could be made that each of the two boyer's a certain point in time somehow contributed and that the flow from their efforts led to  workable because of precisely that problem but my understanding is that is why i know for sure that the veteran aspiration has control over the administration fees and they must be reasonable as mr carpenter alluded to and therefore if  that is overly broad and it would be horrible and i workable policy is mr if if what mr carpenter literally means is post hoc ergo propter hoc because it happened after my work it must event as a result of my work second that there was a thirty percent service connection back to ninety three he did not establish and he could not have established what the veterans condition would be in two thousand and three because that was years in the future well actually decisions two thousand to it was li thousand and one shortly there after she went into a hospital and there was a new condition new evidence hospitalization records which could not have been up to the board in two thousand and one and so even that slight difference in time was enough for the court to conclude where the records were simply no benefits now your argument if i understand your response to judge john later elizabeth and i want to make sure this is right isn't that remain in effect that reason and determination that the court the bond court called for has already been done in this case in effect by the board is that is that your position yes i don't think there's ever been any suggestion that the evidence submitted by the v f w had is not can consider never been considered in connection with evidence was really material evidence but it certainly was part of the very langley nov twenty second two thousand and twelve four decision in which all the evidence was discussed with a material evidence of the final three point one five six material evidence means existing evidence three claim or one hundred percent with respect to that claim and the definition goes on to say this evidence must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiate that claim there's no reason possibly the two thousand three investigations are veterans health and two about the v a is wrong here because the v a overlooks two critical factors one that explain straight the claim stream of this case is uninterrupted it involves the appeal of the initial rating assigned after the grand that's what's in playing in this case and the reason that that claim stream is uninterrupted is one of finality which goes directly to your point your honor about bond there evidence from the medical record that justified a higher rating and the reason that it's part of the plane stream is when the board were granted the benefit and sent it back for an additional rating the v a only assigned a thirty percent rating at issue then in mr brooks claims stream was the appropriate rating from nine hundred ninety three in excess of thirty percent the v a creates or subdivide the case of mr broke into one of the fact of date and rating while those are issues in the rating more than thirty percent of those are not new claiming they cannot be subdivided the mr brooks case cannot be subdivided would you say then that whether you want to see this claim or case you can you can answer that yourself to both it's a different answer but would you say that where you have a feeling for as back benefits based on the argument that there was actually a higher level of disability originally say in this case awfully in this case your honor and that's because we are not dealing with something that happens during the course of the proceedings what we're dealing with here is the entitle meant to compensation under fifty nine zero four for an award of past event if it which takes place during the play in st there is no finality to mr brooks claims stream and it may in fact still be open the april two thousand and fifteen most recent decision granted a total rating back to nine hundred ninety six so there is a window between one nine hundred ninety three and ninety ninety six where the rating currently is merely fifty percent i do not know what the status is of that part of it but i do know that mr snyder on behalf of mr brock has been successful as late as april of two thousand and fifteen and getting mr brook an award