notice a disagreement is filed with respect to the case before an agent is entitled to charge and earn a feat however to interpret this phrase we must st look at and consider exactly what under section seven disagreement is the central question that we're dealing with here is how specific does the in the o t have to be can you address that issue yes your honor looking at the structure of the statute as well as case notice of disagreement is to initiate an appeal and it must be remembered that that a notice the disagreement is not an appeal what it does under the statute it triggers specific actions by the attorney agency of original jurisdiction to review the record of a new applying all relevant laws and and making new decision in response to the disagreement in hamilton be brown site thirty nine s  seventy four this court held that the n o d has no other function but to initiate appellate review and ngai egos to be principi the court said and i'm quoting although initiating the appeal process and you know the may or may not what's a dispute especially if we're talking about a point of law your honor the jurisdiction on these specific issues is derived from this assumption of appeal when a notice disagreement is filed as i said the statute triggered specific actions by the agency that must be performed one of those is in that is a mandatory development or review action where the a t o g identifies it applies can be supported by law and so the agency that will grant the benefit or issue a supplemental state i'm sorry a statement of the case which under seventy one o five the one requires it to set out the specific end and to issue a new decision on each issue with the summary of the reasons for such decision from that statement of the case the claim then identifies the specific issues that he or she wishes to appeal to the board and the board's decision is where the courts derive their jurisdiction not from the agents a nod that's just to say that raised the question asked for a review but it was not but with respect to the case and so it was an insufficient nod for purposes of allowing your client to be able to have correct yes your honor i would agree with that however i think it's a because it can't tell you how to argue it but it seems to me that you should need to focus on why it is you think that to continue t d i you for the better correct generally speaking yes correct your honor however no actual actions in the trigger here was the requires the v a to consider all information and lay in medical evidence of record in a case before the secretary with respect to benefits furthermore as i mentioned thirty  requires the v a each time he makes a decision to grant every benefit supported by the law so when we are looking at what is the case we have to consider it within the context of those two primarily those two laws that require a thorough review each and every time a decision is made to the veteran or claimant and also requires the be a to grant every single benefit supported in the mall and that is where the basis of the entitlement to additional benefits for his already service connected conditions derives its authority and so now in the name of this this just crushing that we've been having thus far m we they are raised for the st time here before this court but as we explained in our briefing the court's ruling was based upon an interpretation of what  the must in some way the limp be limited to whatever determination was in the decision letter mailed to the to the claimant and the correct interpretation of the response to his question they're saying that they have reconsidered the proposal and decided not to make the proposed change however it responded saying that he was still unemployed and therefore his he was entirely to continue receiving g r u yes your honor counsel this is george so i have a quick question for you my understanding that is correct your honor thank general rule that arguments raise on appeal that were not previously argued below are not considered and counsel has provided no reason that the court should not apply that well established rule here even if the court were to consider the fifty nine determination and must be reasonably read to express disagreement with that determination and that's consistent with fifty nine dollars to four dollars which provides the notice of disagreement must be to the case so here mr percivale filed this notice of disagreement concerned i see and it was in response to the april two thousand and fourteen writing decision for t d i you but there was nothing in the april two thousand and fourteen determination for which mr percivale could have disagreed with and so the document although it was titled a notice of disagreement was actually not a notice of disagreement as provided in twenty  and expressed a written dissatisfaction or disagreement with and if you dictated determination a desire to contest the result perhaps your honor if it could be reasonably construed as a disagreement if it were reduction proceeding is limited to the veteran recertifying eligibility for benefits and then the v a makes any necessary justman based on that certification and cheer on or stolz question there's nothing in th certification that relates to the s and p ward or eligibility at all and there is no sexual basis and section three dollars that the v a must reexamined all of the benefits and reasons your honor st that certification that was requested of the veteran was in the context of a reduction proceeding and on pages eighteen tonight to never briefly explain the difference between a reduction proceeding and a claims proceeding a reduction proceeding is not a general it's you to cation of benefits it's for a particular purpose on a particular benefit and the be nothing to do whether it's a renewal or an extension write and your honor i would point you to perhaps appendix if teen and are briefed on pages twenty five and twenty six that talks about when the v a is required to look regulation and i would also like to point out as we did in a reply brief that the court did have the veterans court did have an opportunity to address this argument in our motion to reconsider but chose not to and i don't believe that that would be the secretary and it is whether special monthly compensation is required and every decision the secretary is trying to differentiate between this and any other decision issued by the secretary but at the n c special monthly compensation is the exact same issue as entitlement to t d i you we did not go into it in the brief here because the focus of it was was was explaining in our briefs why this wall requires the are s and t so all of them are actually just the ratings that congress has directed when you meet the qualifications v a will pay the specified amount of money and it makes no difference whether the veteran who by the