of four subsection d respect to the board's obligation to provide reasons or bases and for its decisions in veterans cases as to all material issues of fact in law that are presented on the record mr hat would  this is an important allegation and that system in particular because of the claimant friendly nature of the we have the and because of the claimants nature climate friendly nature of the rejecting evidence that is otherwise favorable to the veteran and might place the evidence into a place where it is is there any interpretation of section seventy one of board the one involved in this it's well that's just typically what i'm asking what i'm asking the court to say is that the reasons are bases requirement is not simply it's not simply that the court any reasons or bases a sufficient but those reasons are bases have to be more than just as just a reason any reason at all that there has to be legal prevail on this there then any case could come to us and we can review whether there was factual sufficiency right well i can respect that our position would be that we're looking i think also for some guidance from the court as to the court responsibility to ensure that the board does provide those reasons in basis and in this case there was at the court the argument what's the answer to my question is not what lives this different and then you know that it doesn't this just provide a mechanism for doing in one jurisdiction in this case what we have was a situation where the board gave reasons for its rejection of this evidence the court did not specifically address those reasons basically the court's decision in this case accepted those reasons at face value  the language that reasons or bases that that mean something that the reasons are bases that the board provides it has to be a reason that is supported by some it has to be an actual reason or bases that will survive legal justification or that is factually of that will survive a challenge on the record now i think this case provides an illustration and in the illustration here is that the reason one of the reasons that the board gave was that it found that the opinion that it rejected was in artfully worded it didn't really explain why that was or what it found to be confusing about that particular  pinioned the other reason that the board gave was that it found that the opinion that it that it rejected did not provide a rationale well the reason i cited to the entire opinion in the record was because medical opinion was because there was a rationale and in fact the rationale w principally than the ones from the negative opinions finally the board basically said that it rejected the favorable evidence because it was inconsistent with the negative evidence which basically means that will this medical expert disagreed with this medical expert and so we're going to reject it up on that finding of fact in the bailiwick of the of the board and so we there's nothing we can do about that and so i would say at that point then that so if the board gives any reason whatsoever the court must accept that the court doesn't have any ability to actually review the finding as to whether i mean the court does have a view we in fact argued or i in fact argued at the court that these were arbitron capricious reasons and bases and essentially what the court did in this case is they gave a reason we're sorry that you don't like it there was no actual analysis or no discussion by the court as to that actually addressed that and so the argument here is that seven one zero four d does mean something that the reasons given by the board have to be more than just whatever reason and that the court has more of an obligation our responsibility to make sure that those reasons stand up and that is the legal issue it's the manner in which the court is going to review those reasons and bases perhaps and what does that mean what does that mean for the court c evaluates the reasons by the board what does it mean can you provide the court with some guidance as to whether or not what it has to accept i mean is the court just entitle to accept whatever reasons no matter what because at that point then i would suggest that that maybe judicial review in this area well maybe we don't have it because if the court's going to say well whatever they say we can't do anything about it i would say well then that would be one argument better presented to congress and the score and that's jurisdictional limitation against this court's review of the application of lot of fact this court in the cook case previously addressed a similar situation in that case there was a question of whether the veterans were properly applied section seven really is no distinction between those two positions finally with respect to the rest of the arguments that have been advanced by mr hunt they are all either applications of lot of fact or are direct attacks against the boards of weighing of jurisdiction and actually engage in the exercise that mr hunt requests then one would find that there is no distinction between the interpretation of seventy one of the four the one that was in one seated by the veterans court and the one that