whether she had the authority to make an agreement on him and if i understand the comma correctly and mother even with respect to a minor child which he wasn't the time agreement doesn't have the correctly and correct me if i'm wrong you're arguing that the statute does confer sort of her to make an agreement on the child but that my understanding are correct yes because of the nature of the the case involved the case here involves the right to dependency and that compensation you can get dependency and indebted to compensation either as a minor or as a disabled a question of making a claim it's a question of the claim was made for the right to this type of compensation by the parent the parent was the only one that could make that  surviving spouse the additional subsection thirteen eleven thirty forty provides for an alternative play when there is not a surviving spouse but there are surviving dependen he can't come under thirteen fourteen until let's assume she has escaped she won the award under thirteen ten for the surviving spouse and the dependent children and then they discover that they did that in this case whoever discovered that oh he might be able to get separate and apart another amount of money as a helpless child given that he's majority eight right now you're saying that he couldn't go when with those thirteen fourteen benefits unless the mother did what i mean unless less came in with actual violence but yeah ok so the big answer is you can go in on his own for thirteen fourteen as long as somebody has prevailed the surviving spouse has previously prevailed relationship between these two claims conceding that one is a prerequisite of the other why does that answer a judge dyke question which is what gave her the authority to enter into an call it a case for a playing at the time of the triggering of that which permitted the fee agreement to be entered into one hundred fifty nine four there was an adverse decision on the denial of what the board called the service connected that that's an accurate characterization of the play or the case because it was a plain orientation about the right to dependency and then the compensation and the reason that that original board decision was fourteen to permit a playing independent of the mother to be made arising out of the case in this case so this case turns on whether the helpless child can make his own plans which that is correct as it relates to thirteen fourteen however i predict that there is a broader obligation for you to be consistent with her case in the definition of what constitutes a case and case here is about the into a discussion about who has the authority to enter into but whether there was a valid contract entered into under fifty nine four and there are specific criteria set out by the statute the first of which under fifty nine the foresee benefits that were pages a month he was actually ordered a fee based upon that of your past event that was the original award under thirteen that is correct and that extended i believe for two months possibly three months of his actual minority answer my question the surviving spouse has no interest in claiming compensation she just won the lottery she has one hundred million dollars she doesn't hear she doesn't share and she's about here with their child and the child decision is in this case hypothetically mr stoner number two the child had entered in to a fee agreement at the same time or a few months after his mother did when he entered eighteen or whatever with the with an attorney saying that yes and as a result of thirteen past i go to thirteen fourteen to get my helpless child and i wish then i agreed to avoid twenty percent to wait for the mother can do it or can he do with himself he can do it itself there and he can do it under it and then it's not under thirteen eleven it's under thirteen thirteen and the difference is the can that child save my mother i'm going to do this not because she's a millionaire but because she just doesn't understand what's going on because that child then have have a a right to those me that your interpretation at least of the statute just trying to direct people into what they can do what they can do what if they made the decision what if it was just my hypothetical where you had a fee agreement and this adult child agreed that whatever he gets as a result of this initial proceeding he'll pay twenty percent as well you're saying the v a wouldn't recognize that because it wasn't after board decision well why risk couldn't they made it termination the first case to go to try to go for the survivors why do they have to argue two cases rather than why since the first is a prerequisite for the second if any of them so they make the decision they go for the survivor stuff the prerequisite to the helpless child they win that with the