challenges three are st challenges to the rules categorical refusal to consider q claims based on changes in traditional interpretation and before diving into the merits of just one overarching point that's easy to miss in the briefing that i want to make clear and that's that the v a already recognizes the way that a long final decision can be revisited based on a change in traditional interpretation it's called a supplemental play the problem is that rather than mr minus this is judge chen talking  could you st start with the question of standing for and the a to challenge these three regulations i understand we have an opinion da v verses go over suggests perhaps strongly suggest that having members of an association that are veterans alone could be good enough to establish association standing for the for the organization to challenge the regulation but as you know standing is an issue in tomorrow's and bank case and so this is all going to be revisited case law on association standing with at least from my reading appears to be pretty demanding and the scrutiny good in terms of understanding whether a given association and view an members actually have interests against some finally agency action so if you could speak to standing out appreciate it sir so ten we've gone well above q it's just i'm just trying to follow your line of thinking yes there are two potential pathways to get to the finish line of benefits and one path is wide open for the claimant and the other one is closed off what is the harm to the claim and by just taking the path it's wide open to receiving the benefit of the harm is manifold i mean st you've got we've got people who are have pending claims and so they already have two motions ready to be decided ready to be granted and what the v a is doing is the files so they have to go through the hassle of refiling as a different sort of plan and th of the organization have a harder time getting attorneys to represent and they need attorney representation of indicate their claims and that's why i wanted to sort of mention this point about the supplemental claim passed in the client path and how they're all related  the supplemental the final treatment of supplemental claims prevents supplemental claim that's older than a year to be something that an attorney can get before but that's precisely what these based claims are because these claims were filed they were denied long ago well over a year ago and that's going to be true of most changes in judicial interpretation they were going to reflect a practice that has been going on for a while and so the supplemental plan passed doesn't allow attorneys to get and the claim past doesn't either because the final rule categorically prohibit claims from being filed based on changes in judicial interpretation and so that the upshot is that attorneys aren't getting fees we have clear our views attorneys are directly regulated commander wells has submitted a declaration that you've denied over fifty thousand dollars and fees based on probation if it were not harmed by this no one is read about the last rule so the last rule is to the docket switching bar based on the submission of evidence and there we have identified a substantial incredible risk of harm we both are to our turning harmed these clients can are to be brought just in a different vehicle all we're trying to do is to get better and the benefits that is there are the best effective date that they can get and depriving veterans of their benefits the exclusion here is wrong three times opinion right now i'm talking about both patrick two which was non prac and patrick three which was practice and patrick three made the determination and patrick to presidential  law and it said you need to consider the question of what two claims can constitute what patrick two said to claims to be grounded in changes into this winter patient and that is the law and the v a needs question my understanding is that in one thousand nine hundred and seven when it comes to q claims congress khana find a long prior preexisting administrative practice that was the v a s rule three point one zero five the st sentence the st statement of that regulation is the provisions of this section referring to apply except where and then there is a change in law or a department of veterans affair issue or a change in interpretation of law or department of veterans affair issue and that language carried for that regulation and i guess what i'm wondering is it looks to me like there had always been an exception to q when that bartok you claim whenever there was a quote unquote change  interpretation of law and i don't see that phrase in the old old regulation and being cabined into just agents agency changes in interpretation of law or  necessarily excluding judicial changes interpretation of law so as i understand the da v opinion as i understand the agency's pre one one thousand nine hundred and seven practice boards regulatory exclusion but it didn't say what it was it didn't say anything about whether it contemplated a change in interpretation of law by a court or an agent and in fact it indicated th covered by the exclusion because russell explained to q is intended to conform the decision to the true state of the law the true state of the law but the correct interpretation of the professional provision  even prospective actual imminent threat of injury with regard to the two rule because he is covered by the blue water navy act and the blue water navy act is of course an extraordinary remedy that congress undertook to rights i'm not i don't believe i'm not completely familiar with the blue water navy act i don't believe that any veterans are required to file claims but i believe if they want to receive the benefits that the blue water navy act reading of the blue water rant is th not just that's what i activity but they get there they get to keep their earlier effective days so practically speaking water veteran seems to be required in mr mills to listen and come back on rebuttal if you think some wrong drill down and reference a couple problems going with the supplemental claim route that thereby creates in fact some kind of injury to being deprived going that you claim are out and i and i heard him say something about timing i guess if you've already got a pending to claim why make mr hodge go through this supplemental claim route and then to going the supplemental claim route is difficult because you're very likely to not have representation because currently there is no ability to for attorneys to be compensated for this appears to have representation an m b a is assisting him and so he can demonstrate that he has not been able to get help with his supplemental plan because he in fact does have help with a supplemental claim i don't know whose client this he is exactly but he's that getting a decision on cue would be any quicker or more accurate than a supplemental claim and so given the vagueness of the allegation i don't think that he that he can establish that mr hodges suffered any sort of injury by having to  concrete worry about actually being inevitable i realize this gets into the merits a little bit but there's no grounds to think that members are even likely to run into this issue the docket switching roll permits three different well three different lanes after the initial decision but then three different lanes also in front of the board and the docket switching role is actually very generous to veterans and allowing them to switch within the st sixty days and even after that if they show good cause the only rule is that they can switch after they submit evidence or testimony and there's no reason to think that this is going to be any any sort of concrete problem for any of their members much less veterans in general that they go all the way through with submitting evidence and there  a there is evidence new evidence and testimony and so the likelihood of someone being in that time posture and wanting to switch dockets seems to be an evitable but that will  and also to say that with respect to this particular claim we're dealing with a procedural right rather than substantive right been in the case of standing i do believe the lesser is required to be shown where you're trying to deal with the procedural rights would you agree with that proposition last by ari would you agree with the proposition that in the standing analysis that what we're talking about is a procedural right you have a lower the standards for what standing is required assuming it's procedural i don't i don't have them quite a hand but i do believe that they are more lenient so i would need to look at those to have to have a firm answer on that and i can of course  about how q applies except where there is a change in law or department of veteran affairs issue or a change in interpretation of law or the department of veteran affairs issue and i just didn't understand what does department of veterans affairs issue do you know i'm not entirely sure i did a admittedly did not go and look into exactly what that means simply because the issue at hand in this case was a change in interpretation or change in law and so i am not entirely positive was changing the issue means but i do believe that both versions of three point one zero five make it very clear that changes in regulation and the statute are all contrary to the conclusion that three dollars precludes q review on the grounds of a change in judicial pronouncement or a change in judicial interpretation of law however as we demonstrated in our brief the case law the regulation and the statute the regulation of the statute being informed by congressional intent all very clearly demonstrate that the regulation is valid and that you to show interpretations are precluded but i would suggest that the court does not even need to reach those last two because the a z and jordan are dispositive of this matter and as your honor noted patrick two is not presidential and patrick three did not make patrick to presidential and therefore there is no reason not to have simply followed the a v and jordan here and there is no reason not to extend the rules regarding the board two rules regarding the agency of original jurisdiction particularly because congress has shown an intent to treat them the same with that unless the court has any other questions which i'm happy to feel we would  how it would be burdensome or unfair to claimants to restrict their ability to switch lanes after they submit evidence and the comp the response to that seems to be more about just general efficiency in and things like that but i don't understand right now sitting here why it's inefficient to deny a claimant the ability to switch lanes once the claimant has submitted some evidence i don't understand what it is about that action that receipt of evidence that causes the agency to fall down if claim and subsequently wants to switch lanes could you explain yes your honor st more more broadly speaking and they was put in place in order to help fix some of the efficient i understand all that we only have a little bit of time could you just answer my specific question of why is there some real tangible inefficiency to to permitting a lings which after the submission of evidence well your hon r i think as the a point about appendix sixteen dollars seventeen cents that there are inefficiencies with both making it difficult for v a to provide accurate data like wait time is better and for allowed to switch basically at will and that there is a need to balance the desire for veterans to change dockets against the needs of other veterans waiting for a board decision and that those other veterans and veterans were allowed to switch after evidence was submitted so more or less whenever that they would evidence and testimony would have been to prevent the appellant from unfairly gaining advantage of two dockets and this was supported again by dennis comments to the it's response to the comment submitted and  with regard to the proposed rule and the a i think explained on appendix sixteen that it would give the veteran an opportunity to switch dockets and unfairly disadvantage other dockets or other veterans who might otherwise wait with regard to both the time and the evident submission that these rules were put in place to balance the needs of the veterans who want to switch versus the needs of the veterans that are waiting and also referenced its difficulties in providing accurate data which is part of what it wanted to do which is give accurate data regarding wait time to to the veterans who are in front of the board i mean i think i'm going to start i do have another question from this  federal circuit opinions and stanley and carpenter that each went through the legislature it seems clear to me that those opinions read as saying that the statute was designed to permit fees for any work performed after the initial decision and so i don't know why that wouldn't also apply to the type of supplemental coin that we're talking about here as to  and that's why the a through the distinction between supplemental claims that are continuous i e within one year and part of the three lanes that a claimant can undertake versus a supplemental claim that you know for example ten years down the line after the case becomes final and so when the cases become final and a veteran some it's a supplemental claim it's essentially treated as a new case and that's why the a o'jays decision would be treated as an initial decision and as i don't want to get too into depth because of time but i think our brief establishes why there's such a distinction and a difference between supplement time claims that are filed on non final decisions versus supplement claims that are filed in final decisions and just to finish up i would note that the b j r c j r a as is cited in our briefs suggests that congress did not intend paid representation for a vet to wait years without any action and then differently than supplemental claims that are part of the same same initial decision because it has been finalized yet ok let's we can stop there let's go back to refiling as a different path and five hundred dollars now is worth a lot more valuable than five hundred dollars a year from the delay matters and hassle matters and supreme court precedent for it let's look at assume that there's no for the q path to be clear to the states that we didn't claim that procedural right relaxed and thence applies across all claims we did it in our supplemental brief we said real actual clients for each challenge and that for two reasons that q one is we have a right to pre enforcement review under thirty eight dollars u s c five o two which furnishes a procedural raid and two is two is a procedural pass to benefit yes to as a substantive and matter whereas if you go after two you might get the following day but if you use your two you don't get so if you lost your queue you lose your entire claim right now i don't agree i think on the fine i believe i believe the blue water navy act would allow you to file a supplemental claim afterwards based on the blue water navy act but again i want to be clear about the effect of a point it's all it's talking about as a fact point i mean about the case law i agree wholeheartedly i don't think i've read any farther than this quote from carpenter a veteran's claim based on a specified disability does not become a different case that each stage of the often lengthy and complex proceedings including remans as well as reopening there's no doubt on the statutory text the purpose of d n a or the court's case law that seems to be allowed and as for the docket switching bar this page and engaged with the fact that the times ar