case raise a single issue to the court as whether the veteran court erred by not even considering equitable relief in both cases below if this court has jurisdiction because this is a jurisdiction as well as its scope but about thirty eight u s c five zero three we don't believe that five of the three has any impact on this argument because it relates strictly to the secretary's thorney and we believe that's independent of the veterans court authority which we believe derives from article three section two because a veterans court is in article one court which has a judicial power of the united fifty thousand dollars of it out of pocket reliance interests in the other it's what you in mr thompson's case it is a proximately a fifty thousand dollar reliance harm this case what is the relief that you are asking i thought it was please remain and this so that i can go and ask the secretary and the veterans court said we don't need to do that just go on as a secretary or something like that mr berg did ask remained for that purpose but he also asked as stated in the opinion of the veterans court opinion for the veteran court entrance court itself to consider equitable relief essentially  before a tribe yes your honor what we're seeking is to apply that same tolling theory to a time limit for a benefit which at the time that the the in the occurrences occurred he was eligible for then some activities that he had no no control over occurred as his mother died and that told the limit of the time limit for that benefit and we distinguish that from the cases we are asking for a benefit that you were not eligible for or has been explicitly taken away by congress for example you cannot get more than one year retroactive the time that just one was talking about that would be an aid to the specific powers yes your honor we believe that congress did not take away explicitly take away any of the article three  an an article in court has the article three section two powers because they have the judicial powers of the united states which necessary includes all the article three powers unless there is explicit  the jurisdiction but did not withhold any particular jurisdiction here and so let me ask you i guess the question from the your point of o p m and why is it mcrae our  component of a judicial authority equitable authority the power to order monetary payments from the government that are not authorized by statu consistent with the core rationale of the and against its won't be i'm and mckay discuss relief that we are not seeking here we are seeking we are not seeking benefits that congress has has not authorized we are seeking relief for air or seeking benefits in violation of the terms that congress set for the payment of said then and they are now mr thompson is asking for the difference for the harm the damages the the case so that supports us as detrimental reliance in good faith on government employee but i don't and i'm not questioning for a second to the the equities here but where does some sort of way the equities here is unfair to resolve the unfairness to mr thompson and mr burroughs and his situation because of a government error or because of a situation outside the control of the veterans and congress in all of its jurisdiction for the veterans solicitude towards a veteran and we believe that the inherent authority of the veterans court under the theory we've laid out article three not being restricted in any means for by congress and that congress having solicitude for the veteran could have taken it away if they didn't want the same but that money damages and equable really are almost always considered totally different right and what you're asking for as you said yes i mean even as the that's that's or said he is sympathetic to the position court has we believe it's not expansion of the scope we believe it's inherent in scope somewhere in my class action aggregate action capability was there just not recognized by the veterans court to do what congress wants for principle but i mean it's a different vehicle to obtain the very same benefits that are that are authorized by law but the veterans court used the same justification that they were not authorized to do that this court found that they did was granted to the veterans court by congress right yes your honor and we believe we're making we're trying to make the same argument here is that congress congress created an article on court without restrictions in this area no explicit restriction therefore it has the authority similar to having the authority to do class actions has the authority to consider equitable relief the other restrictions on equity equitable relief against the government still apply but the court needs to apply it to the kickbacks in the individual cases similar to mock not just a blanket we have no authority to have class actions but we've considered a class action here it's not they can do the same here as one of the judges in the dissent a blow said equitable remedy may be found on warranted but it should not properly be unavailable so if the damages for mr thompson are secretary no he was reviewing the case millo and there was an argument in both cases that at bottom the court should do the right thing and the court interpreted both of those as equitable requests for act in equity in fairness the court could say yes it needed to be you needed another three months because you lost three months in the middle of this for a good and fair reason so we believe it's may even be less  less significant than tolling a court of appeal because you can read all the issues we're asking for a specific issue and we believe that the authority to listen is not to veto the secretary or to question the secretary it's an independent after the secretary has acted after the claims are up that trans court sits above that and says we think this should be done in fairness the issue that we have here is we believe congress did not intend that the only relief for veterans who are harmed harmed or damaged by by honest mistakes of the government delay were misinformation which is clear from this record it's not just sympathy which is what the court always says we sympathize with the veteran our hands are tied we don't believe their hands are are actually tied they have used aided and questionable president within their own work to come to this conclusion is never as reviewed in twenty years we believe that we have put forward as far as the lack of restriction by congress and the question as in the cases in this court in bailey is there any reason congress would not want the veterans to have the same right to equity in these types of decisions and at least the power in the veterans court even if they use it very extraordinary that is a power that's very mr thompson argued below cracked and i get the fact that we're not allowed to review the secretary's discretion and that they're not even asking us to do that but do you are you aware of whether the secretary has ever exercised report as required by statute to congress and that's published each year and the equitable leave included the payment of money yes and so on by the statute under five through the secretary can award any equitable relief teams appropriate and that includes the payment of money so you don't argue as there are seems to imply that even if the secretary it's him him or herself had the power under fire all three that the appropriations clause would prevent the exercise that power that's correct of the secretary as is exercising that authority there is there are believe there's a statute that allows for necessary expenses to be a uses to pay for claims for equitable relief and i then moving forward you argue that that the court does not have general aggravate powers do we need to go that far to conclude that that even if they had equitable powers it wouldn't include the authority to order the payment of money i don't think we need to go that far and i'm happy to talk more about the ethical powers in general but in terms of the ability to order money any request for relief that involves payment of  the benefits under the statutes so there's two separate concerns or two separate problems with their argument one is the general principle of sovereign immunity but the second is the lack of an appropriation but your argument that the court has no general the underlying arguments were benefits under five eleven the only question was whether or not there should be a whether or not there was a procedural tool available to the court while adjudicating those planes in reviewing those claims but it was still within the structure the general and detailed structure of section five eleven which questions the statutory entitlement to benefits which is separate and distinct from this narrow carve out that congress has prescribed to the secretary under five and three toward equitable relief for individuals who don't meet the statutory entitled that and you lie a lot on their perforations thousand sovereign immunity but and i don't get why those are background things to consider in determining what that's what the scope of jurisdiction is that's granted by statute but doesn't this at the bottom fall down to a real statutory interpretation it does go into a statutory interpretation question so if seventy two five hundred seventy two fifty two states what the jurisdiction is of the veterans court and sell the question becomes under that statute is there sort of this inherent power to consider areas that are not included apart that are not just related to benefits board only has jurisdiction to review determinations on benefits and so those are the determinations that are made daily by the regional office is delegated right delegated authority so how the i mean i think that's my point if it's a if the statute says and you that under controlling statutes in our in our case law we do not have authority so we view that under i believe it's the four shake cases i'm not elaborating on what those statutes were but certainly if the court finds that they're interpreting statute we would agree that there's pending because of this case certainly if if the court were to determine that the veterans court can award equitable relief and there's the possibility of a double recovery if the secretary also considered whether equitable relief was appropriate so he has since filed a principles but but there is some broad language that your friend on the other side points to yes your honor and i am not familiar with the case but ultimately i would find that that doesn't change the analysis here because still there must be an and in every case that we have identified and hundreds others where the court says their hands are tied it's because they say we can't help you under the law and we sympathize with you because the laws inadequate in that to answer or or make you whole in this question one other point i wanted to mention is that the veterans court rule eight which was created under the authority of the congress for the court to make its own rules is  suspension of secretarial action so it's another reason another example of where the veterans court actually uses its inherent equitable authority to temporarily sector action and it's been applied in cases that i have where the secretary's threatening to send a an action for collection before the investigation and the challenger to appeal of that action was done and they told the secretary got to stop and secretary does stop so there's an example of exactly what the among court has described the authority of congress to let the veterans court implement those unspoken or implicit powers under the under its new additional power of the united states my questions i think the court