well if your question is how or what congress intended by the amendment i'm not sure that that's clear either from the legislative history or from the specific language of the  i think it's also important in the rule of law distinction to examine whether or not we are dealing with as we have historically with the rule of law involving equitable tol whether or not the facts in the record are our interest in dispute and i think in the least in this particular case the facts in this case are not dispute the facts are that there was a rating decision that sorry eighty five the middle of the paragraph there the examiner stated that the veteran was self employed the next sentence hospital report reveals the hospital report as a reference to the thing that appears next in the senate which is an eighty seven through  pains the reference to post traumatic stress syndrome that's correct and what the rating decision reported was is that it only referred to the complaint of depression and age eighty seven there is a complaint of depression however the diagnosis made is of post traumatic stress disorder when it comes up and there is i believe that a reference to this diagnosis of the need to see this in order to confirm his opinion he specifically indicated to the  he recommended that these records be obtained and sent along with the claims filed for is review but the medical records were either not up to r and it appears that at least that record was good and  but that is not setback for the v a jam and seems to me that what we're dealing with here is an incomplete damnation that says that the patient reported to me that he had been treated for post traumatic stress disorder criteria but we have to be a doctor's the known fact or that they were if you read this decision literally then those that somehow were not before the adjudicator because the adjudicator said that he didn't meet the criteria for post traumatic stress disorder but they said screw civilly upon the v a tension what we're dealing with here is a combat veteran who overly lacked the confirmed criteria for entitlement compensation for post traumatic stress disorder and even if you presume that the v a doctor would not have changed his opinion you would have had to be a doctor saying he had post traumatic stress disorder and one  examiner saying he did i mean the benefit of the doubt rule that clearly puts the evidence in actual at will close if not in fact there is a preponderance of evidence in favor of the and not let me make sure i understand what ultimately a complaint of depression a right that's what the seems to indicate right but we also are making the assumption that the document that we're referring to is the next document right well i think i thought we just agreed that that was what this reference was i would say most likely it is your honor except that how can that be if the only thing that's reported by the adjudicator is to completely disregard the diagnosis made in that hospital report and the reference that dr hoxton agreed with the diagnosis  post traumatic stress disorder well it sounds to me like you're not arguing so much that the document was not before the adjudicator but rather that the adjudicator didn't give sufficient weight or disregarded some element that was present in the document is that you know what what the what the criteria says and russell is the correct facts the correct facts were he was diagnosed twice by two different video a doctor and i with post traumatic stress  sure we're here on the same page here your argument seems to be at some point that the adjudicator could not have had that document before him that's not really how that the well is not only that maybe it may be due to cater skipped over some segment of the document but the document itself appears from all evidence to have been before the just right but t examiner referred to three different sources of medical records this examination all the refers to one of the three there was a private hospital treatment and there was outpatient treatment at peoria illinois and there is no reference to either the outpatient three hours give me the private medical treatment or the outpatient treatment at the orient for post traumatic stress disorder it just seems to me that that is the size contravention to suggest that the v a correctly decided this case in one thousand nine hundred three when there was clear evidence that contradicts the adjudicators conclusion which is based exclusively on the fact that a diagnosis was not examination needs to be what were the correct fact known at the top and you read the entirety of at least that single document we know that there were two diagnoses of p t s d which there by contradicts the conclusion that he didn't meet the criteria for us to manage stress disorder and the basis for denial was is that post traumatic stress disorder was not shown on the v a s examination but the rely on the examiners opinion rather than the opinion from the other doctors in the end because that makes a mockery out of the v a examination you send a veteran to an examiner for prong of russell where the correct facts know that the time could not possibly have been before the adjudicator either because he misread them or mis understood the content of the record i mean it would seem to me that all he did was to transcript appeals court failed to rip apply the appropriate rule of law that what he wanted them to do was to apply the rule of the russell and they failed to do so now why isn't that a legal question that that he is along the lines that not only does russell require that the facts be known not known at the time or before the adjudicator but that the adjudicator must have adverted to at least  significant facts i mean if that's that that's i think what i took at least from some of mr carpenter's comments regarding the one nine hundred eighty two the problem with the one nine hundred eighty two report little as related in the one nine hundred eighty three decision if that's right if that's if that's an element of this claim isn't that arguing for a rule of law regarding perceived by the adjudicator and if not proceed they might as well not have been before the adjudicator and therefore russell wasn't satisfied or at least the spirit of russell was in session if that's the rule of law that we're talking application to be sufficient confidence that it was perceived correctly and and applied without reviewing the details doesn't that  that may not be established but that the veteran wishes that this court to adopt i mean and one could walk into any veteran who has an injury is entitled to recover and that's a rule of law let me let me ask you since we're moved to a factual question or at least one that has substantial factual components let me make sure that we're all we all agree as to what the facts are whether or not this court has authority to to deal jurisdiction because as i understand your argument this court would never review the issue of the correct application of russell because of the correct application of russell will always involve step one whether the correct facts were actually before the adjudicator and thus you would argue that no such appeals for veteran claims he did is subject to a lot of characterization the problem we've been struggling with in these matters cases since this word one and that is if i say that you've misapplied russell of law stabs russell then i have jurisdiction here and yet it's the same thing i don't see the difference between those two honestly and i i mean it's not something that i i mean it's it's a problem with the way the statute is written i'm fraid but i i really hundred eighty i was at the eighty three report yet eighty three report is saying it would be useful to me to have the eighty two records presumably that physicians at least did not have the eighty two records and said please send them to me and i take it that it is agreed well i'll ask the question is it agree that he never never got them so that you know we don't know but in any event there was no amendment or supplementation to h which was made into a statute but what happened and what happened what happens and what happened in this case why is that mr wilson after judicial review after he got his benefits went in and said court is after congress's amendment to allow for this court to look at a rule of law in the context of the application of that law to the facts as existed in the record that's what congress intended to do that's what judge plague or said was the interpretation of the panel decision in morgan about what that amendment made the citation the floor is not appropriate for is does not apply to this case for is a case in which it was seeking a factual determination this court has the facts that were before the adjudicator at the time this court has the facts that were before the board which are the same and they were the same facts that were before the veterans court the question of law presented in this it is does mr wills he have the right to conduct this core and jurisdiction to review the application of that will of law and i plead guilty that i did ask fifteen times in the brief to have this court review an application of was because it is that rule of law that this court now has jurisdiction to review to determine whether it was or was not correctly applause well you certainly don't have to agree with me but i do believe that you have jurisdiction under the men  seventy two ninety two and up to this two different v a doctors diagnosed him with post traumatic stress disorder essentially what they're doing is they're not all finding their own medical side of the equation saying well our video examiners opinion we're really asking have this reasonable doubt is supposed to be resolved in the veteran's favor and when you're resolving doubt that we may inadequate begin a examination and two doctors that saw him on an inpatient basis at a v a facility