finding has been recently raised by a record that contains evidence of unemployed billy the veteran is later determined to have been able to obtain employment second with regard to section four point six three the veterans  correctly interpret the regulations as requiring the equivalent of complete paralysis or an kilo's this in order to reason raise a claim for loss of use and or mr better leaving both interpretations of these interpreting terms of either four point one six or four point six three sure so so with regard to four point one six i think the evidence of the court was interpreting the regulation is i shown by the fact that it cited four point one eight in an interpretation at a record eighty six i'm after considering the t r u issue it cites four point one eight which related to unemployed military and wrongful interpretation had to do with this if i heard you correctly the failure of the court to recognize what was required to trigger the inquiry into the four point one six is that right it was a did i hear you correctly and repost to the question of what the substantive requirements of four point one six are right reza could use is the argument you are making about the mission chip or taishan of four point one six substantive argument or in effect a procedural argument failure to recognize that it was evidence that should have provoked the board's inquiry into a four point six i think the question presented here because the v a in board never actually reviewed four point one six and if determination is whether or not it was reasonably raised by the record and but that's not really an interpretation question of the regulation right that's a question of whether that was an error on the part of the board not to looked at the record and concluded that it was reasonably read by the evidence right right but in determining that it was that it wasn't recently raised the court was looking at four point one six and interpreted four point one six as not companies the two asian where a letter a veteran is later unable to secure employment in and finding that his later employment prevented him from even recently raising the possibility of entitlement to t r u under four point one six which requires a veteran to be unable to obtain substantial gainful employment the veterans court was actually interpreting four point one six as not applying in  situation because mr better later you think that the veterans court would interpret ng four point one six not to require that or to require that the substantial gainful employment was not required according to the veterans court is that your view of what they were saying that's my understanding of what the veterans support of it that's the interpretation that i believe the veterans made and the one that said that i think the court seemed to think four point one six acquired was the passage on a five second full paragraph where the court is saying there is no record evidence this is where it dealing with the question of whether that was a record evidence support for t d i you determination there is no record evidence that he was let go of that position as of july twelfth two thousand and twelve that was his new position or that and here's the critical language the four point one six as requiring substantial gainful employment doesn't that isn't that a fair deal the fairest reading of that language the issue the issue of i agree that the language  i think the court also understands that he lost those jobs partly due to it's just ability but it looks at the record of the whole inquiry and as a whole it doesn't demonstrate unemployed billeted i don't see where it's applying an incorrect essentially what you're arguing for is that any time whatsoever no matter what the rating schedules provide whether it's a ten percent or eighty percent if there is any evidence that the veteran found a job the board has to state on the record that four point one six b has been considered and doesn't apply i think i think the question is not whether or not a veteran has obtained a job i think what the point is is if the veteran has presented evidence of return to make sure that i understand your position on the on the jurisdictional issue that we have to suppose that the veterans court had said explicitly we interpret section four point one period then went on to say we've looked at this record and we conclude on this record in light of the fact that he had a job up to lately which seemed to be that was no indication that it wasn't a substantial  was a maintenance supervisor or something like that i think in light of that evidence we think that that standard is satisfied would we have jurisdiction in that case given that they read four point one six to to recently raise an issue of loss of use and we believe that that is unnecessarily limiting of the regulation is not required to some sections of the regulation are not requirements of the general subsection which requires a determination based on the actual  certainly for t r you claim that the issue was on a substantially gainful budget but i think you're also saying that even for a four point one eight points which are a specific narrow category of claims that would nonetheless also require substantial substantial gainful employment right that's right no it's right your honor is there any hint anywhere in that or is the court or for that matter employed his job isn't substantially gained as well so certainly if the issue presented to it is presented to the veterans court and the veterans court doesn't make any sort of assertion otherwise then  skill set and experience of that particular letter now that you couldn't shake that somebody who has been a carpenter all this life and is deprived of the capacity to continue to do carpentry could nonetheless write novels for a living four point six three as mr bender suggests it didn't limit what loss of use of a hand to only the specific examples cited in the regulation so this court should also dismiss that claim as well specifically stated that those are just examples provided in the regulations and obviously noted those examples but it didn't limit its analysis on that it didn't say the only way you can show lots of use of the hands of the hand i you can meet one of those two examples i never said that and in fact it actually stated earlier that page three of the joint appendix the more general language in the regulation concerning whether or not effective function of a hand would be equally well served he raised question as being the jurisdictional point as opposed to the substantive question of what does four point one six mean with respect to what the elements of proof required so i'm i'm not clear which of those what was required to meet the supreme statute and i think that it is in fact indicative of the fact that it is interpreting the language of the regulation above that as requiring something you know along the lines of those to those sections but there's nothing in the regulation of self that as those are meant to be examples or criteria or set up rest hold or be anything related to what is actually required to meet the the text of the body the regulation which requires determination made on the basis of the actual remaining function particular release of the hand whether active grafting manipulation etc is you know is present or deficient to the point it raises the issue and if you require complete because you'll never get that analysis wouldn't wouldn't you really four point six three a and b which referred to the colossus and complete paralysis as being examples of what constitutes a loss of a hand or the way i read the regulation i don't read them as examples i've read the text of the regulation above as being the standard met you require four points of play and ab are merely two ways to automatically qualify for  four point six three consideration all fired the staff there aren't necessarily examples or meant to limit the text above them i view them just as right to circumstances it automatically me for standards not necessarily limiting the