correctly applied and in so doing they used a legal standard that is contrary to the legal standard that is outlined in this court's case of ask is versus sh interpreted the provisions of four point one three house the veterans court's interpretation was that it was adequate for the board to have provided a clear picture of mr castillo's disability picture a consider the symptoms outlined in diagnostic code ninety four eleven which is a diagnostic code for post traumatic stress disorder in order to correctly apply those provisions more is required from the board consistent with this court's decision determination as to what impact those symptoms have on the level of industrial and social impairment and that in addition to identifying that the requirement is  that they completely misapplied baskets claudio but as long as they're citing the correct law and applying it to the facts if they get it wrong think it wrong that question's not for us it's for the term score that's correct your honor and your reviewing not what the did but what the veterans court did and what the veterans court did was to use a legal standard that simply allows for if you will a gloss on the the addressing very specific criteria set out  occupational and social apparent with occasional decrease in work efficiencies and indeterminate periods of instability that is simply a repetition of the rating criteria it is not doing what this court said the board and the v a were required to do when they applied for point one three zero which is to make a particularized assessment that is symptom driven and is tied to the symptom or to the severity frequency duration of symptoms and that that is the analysis that is required in order to properly apply for point one three zero and to simply cut and paste into their decision i get what you're saying and even if i agree with you i don't see how we can do anything these arguments seem to have been appropriate for the veterans court they greed with theo they may not have cited our decision but they cited a similar decision and even if they got it wrong maori case has language that viewers are baskins claudio decision does it not well it does your honor but quite frankly this court's decision takes our him to a much more precise level in terms of standard on our him that's correct and then the but in the end i don't but my our hand does not make the type of interpretation of four point one three zero that this court made in the past i don't understand why you're saying either contains the correct standard the correct articulation of the regulation and but just doesn't cite that's because claudia the issue that was presented by mr quest feel to the veterans court was the proposition of in my our hand but it is more precisely articulated in this court's decision and for me what the court is saying is that the veterans court does not have to address this  interpreting a regulation and can be permitted by the limitations of this course jurisdiction as i understand what you're saying to me because they cited their own decision that deals with it in part but i this court's decision in performing i see what you're saying but i don't see anything wrong with the terms of course citing their own cases as a long as or a correct correct articulation of law for you to win on this point you have to convince except that position seems to me to undermine the whole concept of judicial review under judicial review the veteran for the first time is able to challenge what the agency does in a court of law and castillo presented an argument that was based on this court's interpretation of four point one three zero and the veterans court instead of addressing that issue relied upon its own case law and then made this case articulate a standard that is inconsistent with the standard that is set out by this court of vasquez claudia and the standard that they articulated was is there need only be a clear disability picture and complaining that they didn't consider from baskets claudio the fact that they didn't specifically mention every single one of them sounds to me like they're on you know an opinion writing argument not a legal well i'm not sure it is an opinion writing error your honor if the veteran presents a specific argument and the core you've aids addressing that argument and decides that on grounds other than the grounds that both the or relied upon that's his brief five speeches five seven and eight the two decisions are consistent they both refer to an obligation by the board in the first instance in the court in the sack and it did the voters court go through all the factors that are in power  i think the board clearly looked about because nobody would apply those factors but i think your friend says that the veterans court gave a much different more general look i was just curious if you thought the war the court actually had recited all those factors and and impairment all of that analysis is in the actions court's decision it's not under a heading that explicitly sets to ask as claudio but the analysis itself is there and even if this court were to find it was  ok so starting at appendix thank you three the veterans court talked through what the board did but where does that you said frequency and severity and duration are the three critical concerns that evolved from our hand and more more precisely vasquez claudio so i see then mention the word severity sort of the top of page three but i never see a mention of duration or frequency more even an analysis of the evidence before the board that would suggest that they were looking at the evidence regarding frequency and arranging so tell me where where what i should interpret what sentence in duration of these issues even though they may not have articulated it there looking and and particularly in all the correct evidence that demonstrates that they did in fact apply the right standard even though they may not have parroted the right words ye