court's decision and bond versus shinseki requires the v a to make a determination as to whether evidence is new material when then as it is to submitted within the first year of reading decision part and parcel of the bond three point one five six b williams addresses when the the decision remains pending because the v a s failure to notify the veteran of the a's decision whereas three point one five six  and by the court in bind makes clear that a decision remains pending when you as an insists mended and that the ball is then put squarely in vs court and make a determination as to whether says that the submission within a year renders the opinion non final and if the appropriate reading a bind is that the only thing that can hear the a failure to do that within that year a determination as to whether it's too material whereas williams says a subsequent decision that notifies the veteran of the decision on the merits of the claims is another secure the error the failure to notify in the first place in this case the v a still to this day has made the determination as to whether the nine hundred eighty five submission is too material like this my question is do you see the holding in bond it's kind of like an exception to williams even though you never received any notification on what happened to your earlier filed claim the adjudication of the second claim serves to use a veteran as an implied denial of the first cla then on this is bond saying i guess your position would be that bond would say that's all true and williams unless in the first claim there was new and material evidence that was lurking that was never part of that second claim and in those circumstances there is can't be an implied denial of the earlier file still pending claim because of the new and material evidence making it submission and then mr van appealed that all the way up to this federal circuit which decided in two thousand and eleven so more than a full decade after that that prior decision that nine hundred ninety seven decision was still pending by virtue of the the submission that mr ban me within the year that decision or that your points of stuff williams simply determines that a procedural error or lack of notice could be resolved by later notice absolutely and in any this in this respect three point one five six treated submission within the year in the same way that notices disagreement in st and i notice a disagreement in a submission within a year  a determination in the first place is to whether that commission rendered the prior claim higher jars are you saying that if in the facts of william's earlier claim notice of disagreement and file then williams would that opinion would not have been able to come out the way came out that's true if there was no to the disagreement it would have put the ball in the court for the v a since then render issue a statement of the case just like miers and what we're arguing today that the v a failure to ever make the determination required by three point one five six just renders any any  subsequent decisions that don't make that determination invalid is totally consistent with in general and this court held that the failure to process from appeal by feeling to issued a statement of the ca there anything in the record that indicates that the that the medical doctors that are issue here work ever actually obtained by the you know the only that the documents that mr berard provided the v a with the information about where his reserve records because they specifically requested that he provide the information about his reserve units and the only thing in the record regarding his reserve service is as one single periodic medical examination and as we pointed out in our brief that the law provides that you that reserve member have to have these examinations in a believe it's  finally such that with mr bernard specific lengths of reserve service we would expect to see much more than that if not they had obtained his full reserve wrecker's ok just to confirm your position that there's nothing in the appealed that and yes it wasn't mine determines a few thousand eleven but that plane was never final the court properly considered whether three point one five six c was correctly applied in that case because there was no final decision here we have an intervening final decision court ultimately helped you know once it's entirely possible that the court that the da should have considered something for eligibility but the problem was he didn't appeal that decision at the time therefore that petition is final and we can consider that now if he wants to come back and file a cute claim monroe many years later said wait a second you didn't consider all the evidence that i submitted when i when i made my nine hundred eighty claim including the one hundred ninety five informal claim which was of a medical report this court hel usually pretty good at issuing decisions on those claims right and adjudicating might take them a while but eventually they do it right so yes we're williams's kind of like an exception to that rule of of the second claim as if it also can serve as a decision on the first client that's right benefits that yes but that's a decision williams no actual decision paper with issued to the veteran there and is an exception to the ordinary rule that that is required we reached out and william that said ok but except in this particular exception and no we have begun and we have a problem both of those cases did not involve simple notification it there was an either denial award additional evidence submitted and then a subsequent claims with submitted and then he abandoned it and so the a tried to argue well even if the original claim was nt was not a final decision to overcome this analogy wrong it didn't have to do that if it if it said there was no final decision that was the ultimately the conclusion in other words even if williams would apply if that wouldn't apply  that is the critical difference here were also in that case it wasn't done while it was a grant the second the second decision was a grant and the question was ok you've granted it what's the proper effect is that mr ferraro has we argued that in our briefing mr how much of a burden would it be administratively on the v a if we were to hold them when there's new material evidence and a claim like this may need to address you know we realized that there was a subsequent quoting now and then the subsequent claim was adjudicated but that claim didn't invoke three point one five six like the earlier one which is pointing to what you know needs to be resolved whether decision mr bond appealed a live decision and he got an interpretation of three point one five six see mr perot to do that too i would also to point out  from earlier in the year in one nine hundred eighty five his reserve records were transferred mr barrow claims that they were all transferred but he cannot deny that there were records transferred what what he's trying to say is that what happened was that in there was some records from the from the from the reserve but nonetheless within the letter to him a few days later saying hey we can find your records and and but the record indicates that they did have these records as of november  records are located you know five or two of which are drugs at the bottom there's a signature twelve men to me five if any can we put the to read that normally but no no absolutely needed to hear what happened was they already had the records but they first we want to point out it's as we mentioned in our opening argument three point one five six speed doesn't create make section to finality just like a notice of a disagreement does if a veteran does not samina notice a disagreement within the first year of the rating decision and does not submit any make any submissions within the first year of the reading decisions a decision becomes final only two ways that you can prevent that from happening in contrast three point one five six b is clear that it claims pending if there's some mission within a year or so the reliance on bingham is really misplaced because it has nothing to do with three point one five six b and it doesn't deal with a regulation that says anything about whether plain means pending or not and judge o'malley i think you have the right idea here it's three point one five six b at its heart is really a protective measure for voters so that the  veterans can be assured that when he or she needs to submission vs not going to just ignore it is which is exactly what happened here and if they do ignore it and they they do make that error in three point one five six protect the minutes of their argument talking about whether the records are there whether or not and basically asking this court to conduct a trial about what and actually meant on that letter and whether they really thought that they knew their word ition all records and whether they're available specifically said that that one hundred eighty five decisions ninety claims because the had a claim because they were not chronic since the period is service so the fact that they had service medical records from active duty and in the in the record at the time that they rendered the decision according to the board was not relevant to the reason why to deny it is an idea that there is no evidence of headaches in active duty and the reserve records surely could show