appeals a decision from united states for deals for veterans claims which deals with the issue of whether or not the provisions of thirty eight c f r four point one fo yet that's precisely what the v a found occurred in the may two thousand and two radio decision which was merely implementing the october two thousand and one board a beverage appeals decision in that decision the board had granted a separate claim filed by ms in for a separate psychiatric disability finding that she was entitled to service connection for post traumatic stress disorder she had previously been granted service connection the board stated that the record didn't contain competent clinical evidence and went on to say that the manifestations could not be between one and the other could separate rating and merged those conditions all together by mistakenly finding a clear and unmistakable error what the v a did it it's may two thousand and two decision was in fact the correct application this goes to the legal what is the real question so the legal question is whether or not the three point four one four can form a legal basis for a finding a clear and unmistakable error four point one four is t deal with the question of whether there are separate manifestations for student whether there are manifestations that cannot be distinguished between two types of disability if that is the case then under the anti pyramiding regulation the purpose of three point one four then you don't assign a separate read that's precisely what the v a did in its may two thousand and two decision it said we're going to assign one rating for the does this regulation provide the legal basis for what the v a did in this case it found a clear and unmistakable error in one of its own decisions it acted sewage spawn to a to determine then you see you would like us to compensation with respect to both of that's correct what about to the extent that the combined grading regulation supersedes that there's a separate regulation that says you take two ratings and combine them over a mathematical formula created by the being in other words you can't get two hundred percent right no you can't get two hundred percent the most you can get is one hundred percent but you there is a separate provision for qualifying for but what about  manifestation are and found and when the other condition the only manifestation is and thought as it your view of the regulation that you get double no she would get precisely what she got in the ma decision she would get it waiting for one but not a waiting for the other she would get a rating for the bipolar and economic compensable rating for the post traumatic stress disorder but they would stay as two separate disabilities what the a has done is to say that we're going to nullify what the board did by finding that she was entitled to service connection for post traumatic stress disorder as a separate disability and we're going to merge it together with her preexisting bi polar appeal witness ambled an appeal was not was it were the separate waiting or the failure to assign a separate compensable rating for post traumatic stress disorder or error no your honor i do it in the brief to explain why these are different disabilities because it is essential to understand that when there are just separate disabilities what the v a did in its may two thousand and two decision was the application under the v a s interpretation of the facts ms and women was prevented from appealing that determination because the v a intervened and found that the may two thousand and two decision was the subject of a clear and   air therefore miss ammerman head would appeal the q determination and that was what was for the board and that was what was reviewed by the veterans corps and when the board made its findings it made its findings that the regulation said that what the regulation said it didn't analyze whether that was or was not a basis for a finding a clear and unmistakable error in the may two thousand and two decision the net result here is is that it is ever been now has two separate disabilities rated as a single disability and you would like us to them that he was an error in law and therefore  two decision and implicitly found in the board's decision that there is no separate or distinguishable roots of the manifestation she did not dispute there she did when she filed a notice of disagreement your honor but that wasn't the number two thousand and two decision which filed that the may two thousand and two decision was clear and unmistakable air the v a came in and intervened and essentially negated the finding made by the october two thousand this regulation said and wise what the v a did in two thousand and two and see if you can reconcile that with a allegation made by the v a that in applying correctly that will be elation that was a appeal she had the right to have it the correct interpretation of four point one four consider when resolving the question what it would look you were what the correct interpretation  rating for post traumatic stress disorder because it is rated as part of her bipolar disorder and did not one hundred percent yes she did or on her head went back in one thousand nine hundred one for four years before she ever alleged she had post traumatic stress establish that she has separate manifestations from post traumatic stress disorder us up or ability because they make change in the future absolute because if she has one hundred percent for one and established sixty percent or more for the other or a combination of other disabilities which she may have she's out there for special monthly compensation which enhanced is the amount of her compensation  the morning may please the court only applies when the v a finds that to diagnoses in this case p t s d or a sore arm fact the same disability in other words just focusing on the first sentence of the regulation certainly that the at the regulations implicated in  situation like that our position is that the regulations also implicated where the manifestations of different diagnoses are the same we focus on the last sentence of the regulation and here  both injuries there see one benefit from the loss of the right on similarly under the ratings table a four point one one for that contains a schedule bridge for the digestive system and it lists chronic liver disease is is a diagnostic code seven three four five different diet for hepatitis c seven three five four so better put out of hepatitis c and chronic liver disease but the symptoms of those two are identical exactly the same so for better as both they don't receive board was saying at the time in other words because there were there was no way to distinguish for manifestations of anti pyramiding regulation she should not receive two separate ngs even though one was listed as zero nonetheless  and i think they were trying to help her because i think the fear was that first her p t s d wasn't being considered in the overall benefit because she received a zero rating now of course whenever they sent it back she continued to receive a seventy claim claim on jurisdictional grounds merely because the symptoms of that claim were intertwined with a previously diagnosed condition but whether a claim is accepted for jurisdictional purposes is different from the issue here which is and that's  thing to have been one but the boy who left open the possibility i mean in the future he could come in and if there are other symptoms that seem to be unique to one or the other he might have the opportunity to do that that's right word specifically said that diagnosis that's right in the little time i have left i'd like to direct the court's attention to the may two thousand and two decision which is of the joint pending page fifty eight and in the section number two service connection proposed dramatic stress disorder under analysis it explains why the non compensable rating was assigned it was based upon the separate manifestations of post traumatic stress disorder that were evaluated by the v a in may of two thousand and two when they were implementing the october two thousand and one decision then i was direct the court's attention to the november two thousand and two decision which found that there was a clear and unmistakable error in the may two thousand and two decision specifically at page thirty three where they explained their decision and specifically referenced the board a better chance of peel's remained of october two thousand and two that says that a separate evaluation for post traumatic stress disorder in addition to bipolar constitute evaluation of the same disability under various diagnosis that is a weighting of the facts those facts cannot be those disputed facts cannot be the basis lawful basis you cannot use four point one four which in heritage involves the weighing of what manifestations do or do not exist as a legal basis for fighting that there was clear and unmistakable where the v a in no way is harmed by them is everman having to sign it about equations and the gratuitous language that you refer to judge prose is simply misdirection the reality is that by having put these as the government as you can see that as rated as one single psychiatric disorder she comes forward at a later date and says these are my manifestations they'll say those have already been considered in your rape you are not