whether the fear used the correct legal standard in determining which claims a veteran has raised to fulfill congress's intent to create a non adversarial contaminates you ask us and we were talking about  so here is one question where medical records attached to that application or are the medical records on which you rely to try to bring in to the actual application  they actually attached to the application your honor they were in the record but i'm sorry and what records in the records service medical records so and so now you're saying i think you're saying they were not attached to the application they eventually became part of the application for benefits by the usual process of the v a getting the service records is that what happened not quite your honor so it's true that they were not to catch the application but this she did specifically ask the agency to obtain the relevant medical records and i could turn your attention to a particular place the record where she did that looking  health south texas and that's important health south texas and then a few lines down it says please obtain these records and grant benefits to the veteran is specifically asking to even see to obtain the records from health south texas and of course the application if you turn to the veteran's original application which is it appendix to forty five health self rehabilitation hospital is also referenced there dollars ok and so this is where she lists for benefits and if you look in the nd row she says health health rehabilitation hospital and then she lists the specific time window where relevant window the veteran referenced in her application and if you look down at diagnosis towards the end it says diagnosis generalized anxiety disorder and depressive disorder and o o s and a few lines above it says the veteran showed mild impairment in memory and history of anxiety and depression which are currently exacerbated and that's the key language because in this record which the veteran has  be i don't know a general assumption maybe partly disputed this is what i'm trying to figure out that benefits saw is referring to that condition on which the ultimate monetary benefits would rest so that benefit is effectively being he equated with relevant condition or disability do you and i'm trying to understand if there is actually a benefit for a disability and so to identify the benefit sought there is no dispute the veteran needs to somehow identify that she wants benefits for a particular disability ok i did so the problem is there's a plane or disability benefits the v a will be obligated to search through the medical records to see if there was some other physical condition that one identified in the plane so your honor we're asking that the agency consider the application together with the evidence of record and so rare he adds a record not evidence of record where he mean in the v a records in all the evidence before the agency that includes service medical records as well as any other records and this oh so my statement about the scope of what you're asking for seems to be correct understanding now it's not correct your honor what we're asking is where the application specifically points to specific records specific treatment of a specific hospital during a specific window of time so she's always records that they have to look at those would be the records are they looked at and terminated which planes have been raised because when you're determining which clues are defended the service member has to point to the service member points to particular records in th a has to look at those records and see if those records that support and alternative fear yes your honor if the veteran says obtain records from this particular hospital during this particular period of time great benefits then yes the better the agency should look at those particular records and determine if those records raise a claim again it's not the records themselves it's the combination of what the veteran has said in her application combined with the evidence o she says look at records for this hospital during this time window and those records show that she had a disability and in particular given that the veteran not only willing to buy those specific records from the hospital during that time window fact or application of law to fact whether the veteran's application it meets the requirements of the regulation we are not asking this court to decide any issues of fact or application of law to fact and so whether her application can sound so i would board should do in the st instance but here they just didn't do that analysis and i'd like to reserve the major time for about oh please  it seems to me we have a little bit of an unusual situation in the the physical evaluation board determination which result in the separation refers to the obviously would be a fact specific incurring a case here but but no i would not concede that because the regulation specifically requires that a claimant submit something in writing that identifies the benefit sought in this instance d terminations the g b form would support them to terminate the claim right because the she was ultimately found unfit in for the for physical disability but that key in the report says yes she has a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with  depression but it was not compensable or rate of all or the basis for her discharge so that would bring us back to there just being a diagnosis or symptomology in the medical records which this court and the veterans court have found is regulation is very clear and the regulation to harken back to the panel's earlier question comes from statute right we have thirty eight u s c five hundred and one which is congress's delegation to the v a to prescribe rules and secretary so those are congress of statements with respect to what it in it expects it expects some sort of claim and it's delegated to the v a the authority to  well she did identify benefit sots when october two thousand and seven she did file a formal claim specifically expressing an intent to apply for benefits and identifying the benefits saw what the board determined and the veterans court agreed w that formal claim in october two thousand and seven identified for specific physical conditions yes they were all attendant to an in service accident but i would i would take issue with the characterization of the record that that formal claim in october two thousand and seven was not for all benefits for anything that might have arisen as a result of the truck accident it was not a generalized claim for all benefits that might have arisen as a result or it within a language that at least arguably suggests a condition that later becomes an issue yet you say there isn't such language here and there is not so why why why is that claimant but it goes even beyond that some of the language is of this i think maybe even a stronger position than your friend on the other side is even arguing for that if a claim is language says that it but you have even though it's matricular circumstances are more narrow right but the circumstances are relevant right that was those were the circumstances where the context within the court was within which the court pining in roberson in roberson at issue was whether or not a claimants of the terms claim that included evidence of the medical disability plus a demand for the highest rating possible which was never quoted as far as i can tell just it seems to be discs asserted that that's what the claim playing is right and then that would naturally include t v are you rights as one hundred percent and in that context the court determined that its nature a freestanding claim it's an extent of a benefit right and so in that instance and we we would agree and submit that roberson is talking about once there is a claim in front of the v a the v a has an obligation to help the veteran fully you know read fully unsympathetically to develop the claims in front of it but roper sen and no case that we are aware of interprets that duty to sympathetically construe a filing to include an obligation for the v a to disregard the parameters of the claim submitted by the veteran and instead go to the medical records however narrow or broad they may be  out claims that have not been made what happens is a practical matter when a plane goes to the our role does the or collect old records medical records or just selected portions it is my understanding they would submit everything that it's within their capacity to them to collect so they were in the in service treatment records and the anything that happened to be a hospital they would collect those records determined plan yes i think not in this case but as a practical matter that can sometimes be difficult when claims date back to six days i was quite severely put themselves at risk for lack of finality and and fifty in the sectionalism and it was then recently amended i think in february two thousand and nineteen although consistently the trend has been to make the claim submission process more formulaic a specific all that i can say i would assume there is and i'm speaking outside the record here but just my given my understanding of how long it takes many veterans claims to wind their way through the system there are probably still a significant number of claims that could wind their way to this court under the person of three point one five eight that's now before you can answer this question do you agree or disagree that the standard that the veterans court articulated in settlers is inconsistent with the standard if applied in this case are those two cases compatible or where they are distinguished on the facts  benefits from his in service right it was a very highly he had delineated he also had delineated physical conditions but then at the end of the form that he submitted he has a generalized statement of intent to see benefits  of your claim form and i want everything i mean title to as opposed to just assuming in this regime everybody is always whether expressly or not asking for everything they're entitled to well  right you know the secretary we have filed a notice of appeal on sellers who don't believe that sellers standard that hinges in part off of this idea of a generalized statement of i want all anything i can get is sufficient to meet the claims standard  but that's that's to be educated and sellers want to get there but this case is distinguishable in that there is no generalized statement of intent to see benefits for a wide timeframe for anything arising from that accident from anything arising from  my medical records in support of these four physical conditions i take your point that someone could have a mental or psychological condition that could prohibit them from accurately conveying that symptom but that has never been alleged in this case michelle has never sought or been given total disability she's never been deemed incompetent she also she has been  your honor we're we have a case in front of us that has a fairly narrow record but what michele is seeking is a broad statement from the score that the v a has some duty to disregard the specific parameters share was very injured from the truck accident right she had many more physical injuries from that truck accident and she even stand sought in that formal claim in october two thousand and seven yes she had a preexisting diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression and in rehab after the accident while still in service there is a medical record that says she is continuing to feel symptoms but it also says she is taking medication and seeing improvements so in the same way that yes there might be medical records that have a mental condition mental conditions can also come and go or they can always be there but they can have varying effects on th individual veterans like i do but those those wouldn't what you're just discussing be a matter for consideration of what we would recognize and if we inform a claimant then we are  instance the st mention in any kind of submission in writing to the v a of anything that was non physical mental emotional psychological was her notice of disagreement with the ratings on her physical conditions that was in july two thousand and eight and in that notice of a disagreement where she is seeking a higher rating for the physical disability there is one sentence that says i don't remember a lot of things i do even the same day the v exercising its duty to fully and sympathetically construe a claim from a veteran construed that single sentence in the course of than anybody that had otherwise was fully concerned with their physical di my understanding is the v a got a complete medical record and there's no claim that that there was anything missing are not considered but the but the v a did take that single sentence i don't remember a lot of things i do even the same day that's between appendix  claim for benefit or if that claim is made within a year of discharge the date of discharge so in this instance the v a the board and then the v a or the m six the board and then the veterans court found that that  july two thousand and eight letter saying she she couldn't remember a lot of things was the st submission in writing by a claimant identifying the benefit sought she didn't have to identify p t s d she didn't have to cite to her be depression or adjustment disorder but she didn't need to put forth some evidence of intent to apply for benefits and i don't like that and i see if i can understand if if in fact she had she had symptoms of p t s d then that would have been considered to be an informal play right she know medical records alone are never sufficient i thought medical records were sufficient if you were already receiving benefits medical records are sufficient to substantiate an increased rating on something that has already been determined service connected not for a different but not for a different benefit because that goes back to the statutory and regulatory definition that puts the onus on the claimant to identify the benefits sought in some kind of written writing right the v a needs something to work from and this makes sense that claimant the veteran is in the best position to i i'm speaking a little bit outside of my comfort zone but i believe that that is the current state of the regulation of form in order to perfect a claim now with the v a you have to file it on a form so it seems to me that perhaps the issue we're talking about is still relevant to the new regulation is that it will come up with a little bit different context in other words was the obligated to send out a formal for more the better and because  it's something which would i don't know that that's a controversial statement i think that the issue in this case that survives under the new regulation is michelle has claimed that it diagnosis or symptomology in a medical record is sufficient to raise a claim even if the actual claim filed formal or informal is seeking benefits for wholly different conditions and i don't know i'm just looking at a stick it feels like it might i'd like to make a few brief points to respond to the government st the government said that the duty a law graded roberson it was limited to the facts of that case but that is simply not with this court has said for instance in the muti case the veterans court had held th records alone are sufficient if that the agency must consider the veterans application together with the record and critically this court has never held that the veteran must affirmatively name a disability that's just not in the case law rather what this court has said is that the agency must look at the veterans application together with a record consider all potential claims raised by the evidence and finally the government says that the specificity in the veterans application somehow argue an obligation to help veterans a team all benefits to which they're due there is no place for presumption limiting veterans to what they request explicitly so for those reasons we urge this court to vacate the veterans court decision and remand to the agency to apply the correct legal standard