morning our first case this morning is edwards versus shinseki and struck me please quote carpenter appearing on behalf of mr michael edwards mr edwards appeals the decision of the veterans court alleging two errors first that the veterans court relied upon a misinterpretation of thirty eight c f r nineteen point two six in this case both the board and the veterans court relied upon an interpretation of section one thousand point two six as a basis for invalidating a notice of disagreement the provisions of nineteen point two six do not include such a sanction or provision the only provision for the only remedy available under nineteen point two six specifically one thousand point two six the is to provide for the contact with the claimant in order to find the issues instead of protesting on some unfortunates procedural point what i did not sure i have an explanation for that other than the fact that this is a attorney  agent who was responding and felt like he had in fact provided the clarification is that it was or mr little mr little that's correct but he's not a center for veterans awareness don't you think he'd be aware of the best interests and from what it from his point of view that's what he was doing your honor now i suppose it can be debated as to whether or not the better  course of action was to provide a greater degree of aid where it is what's the debate well the debate is your honor that under the provisions of twenty point two zero one all that is required of a notice of disagreement is the expression of laro says that he's not required to identify the specific claims but simply the decision that he disagreed with and he provided that disagreement he indicated that he disagreed with the decision that collateral the court noted that it is the substandard appeal in which you get specific about the issues that you intend to raise on an appeal that the distinction here your honor is that all  is required to initiate an appeal is a very low threshold and that low threshold is simply an expression of disagreement with the decision that was made by the v a that decision was on october thirty two expressly indicated that it was not the intent of the da to deprive anyone of his or her right to an appeal but that's precisely what happened in this case mr edwards was deprived of his right of appeal because there was a squabble over whether or not there was or was not clarification about what he was intending to appeal is what he was intending to appeal to was the rating decision and that was clearly expressed in the original notice of this agreement of october fifteenth denied was the rating decision and that's what he said he filed his notice of disagreement with on october fifteenth two thousand and seven and that's all that is required under the regulation under two zero one but  whether you express disagree with the language me and on which says if they gave notice that if you came from nations were made on several issues at the same time is that not this case or is that some other case and that's what kind of a case that that is this case and he expressed this agreement with all of the decisions and when he responded to the clarification he indicated we disagree with everything you did in  in the second full paragraph it to the record that j eight forty eight it says pursuant to seventy one zero five the one the veteran expresses disagreeing with the decision dated october thirty first two thousand and six and this decision is erroneous for a number of reasons and he listed three specific reasons but he expressed disagreement with a specific v a decision and that's what's required to stay and that that reference to not at least one of those favorable decisions it was only a partially favorable decision which and therefore by the way in his brief here edwards didn't raised that he only disputed the three denied claims right all that needed to happen here is that he would say i object to a specific one two three and we could move on and instead you're arguing some minutia ideas there is just going to be as we've had this conversation before though that we've got this hamster way we'll system where things go back over and over and over again on procedural grounds we've got one point two million claims out there only fifty thousand a year making it up to the court of veterans claims let alone the ones that make it here the system is being impeded by this the procedure why didn't he just clarify what his problem was the veterans representative attempted to do that he did not do that to the satisfaction of the v a but the sanction is not to invalidate the notice of this agreement under nineteen point two six that there is no provision for such a sanction the infertility of a notice of disagreement is if the notice of disagreement does not express disagreement or it but i'm not sure i know what you mean by that term or use the brief you wrote yes but that's based upon the decision that was made below i can't introduce i'm going time so you want to save been a big if you're saying they're all what that there's a finite number of decisions that were made right right and he says he's appealing all of those if you said i have a feeling all determinations that may have been clearer but here  members this is this process is not set up to trip up veterans the whole point of this process is to help the v a determine which aspect of the decision the veteran intends to challenge and that has that for what mr edwards is asking the court today to do with to determine that applying sections nineteen point two six and twenty point two one to the v a s letter to him and his letter back was  claim to be considered in conjunction with other parties and that's where the court drew the line is that look just because you didn't mention the constitutional issue of the t d i you in the original and that doesn't preclude you from raising those issues during the course of the appeal however identify the specific claim that he was appealing in his original and the claro is not applicable here and as judge reader pointed out during a count presentation there's a good reason for this regulation because of the backlog of claims and the delays that are already inherent in the process this if a if a veteran doesn't provide clarification it just slows down the process even more because once the veteran so there's no question in this case that sections nineteen point two six and twenty point two one require a better end to identify the specific claims which years he's appealing in any more specificity quired for instance if it's an effective date if you say the t d i use of two thousand and six doesn't just have to say i disagree with that determination does he have to say because i think that they should have been earlier to identify what he thinks is the appropriate determination and then all determinations are all the rage of issues underlying that would be built into the energy including t r u is that relevant so here mr edwards provided no guidance to see about which determinations he wished to appeal but that's why they asked for clarification and when he wrote back he basically said i don't need to provide clarification but the regulation requires exceptions twenty point two one could not be more a court this appeal is not about what the not the regulation at nineteen point two six helps the v a this appeal is about whether or not the regulation in one thousand nine hundred two six authorizes as was done in this case for the v a invalidate a notice of disagreement the regulation does not provide that authority the regulation does provide for a request for clarification and then it says in some paragraph d d that if that response is made what the v a is supposed to do and what the v a is supposed to do is additional development the v a did not do additional development the v a simply proceeded to deny to invalidate notice of disagreement when they put mr edwards on notice of that he did the only thing that was available to him which was to initiate another appeal in order to litigate the question of whether or not his notice of disagreement was that is notice of disagreement was not invalid because it expresses disagreement with a specific decision of the v a and that's all that is required and it expressed a desire for appellate review to impose upon  the veteran the obligation to specify specific claims goes beyond the intent of twenty point two zero one more importantly the result is that right in the  hundred two six the ability to sanction the veteran by invalidating his notice of disagreement if you invalidate his notice of disagreement he is denied the right to appellate review let's just for the questions from the panel thank you very much your hon