essential core principles now anderson just remarkable for two reasons the first is how much space it devotes in its analysis to the procurement structure we see that in the very beginning even before it gets into the facts and then we see it in the body of the announce the second it's so remarkable is that for the first time by any court a little supreme provisions that use some crazy confining language about shall appeal after final decisions and therefore we have to try to figure out you know way that makes systemic sense general consequence in terms of systemic burdens there are as far as i can tell thirty five hundred or so appeals to the board of veterans appeals a year and and therefore our rule is final you can appeal this but not the remitted portion not only can you but you have to and then the veterans court can say yes we're going to not accept this because it's too intertwined but you really do have to give it to them namely system has with very few exceptions broadly said forever but we choose one way of dealing with that if it's final enough you have to take your appeal  work a major change in the system i think it does benefit veterans like you don't see in the veterans court's decision and you don't see the secretary's brief a little any argument as to clogging up that's going to cause a sea nine so we have wait eighteen years to look back and say is this going to be a problem while the side of a just sort of manufactured this policy argument that doesn't exist wants to get compensated for along with the get the illness for so to me that's one of the names and if you look at clinton's decision at twenty three down at one it talks a lot about how do you look at a claim and so we look at  finality on its own i mean i think the that's what that's why i was asking you about the analogy to rule fifty four in which district courts to use your language manufacture they need a rule like this and i just i you know i look i'd look carefully at the veterans court decision and sectors and i don't see a policy and i don't see a statutory authority to try to manufacture the kind of finality they want what they want to do is clean up the mess that they create at the expense of disabled veterans and that's wrong and that's helpful to the veteran however we're saying that after the veteran goes through  and if there's of the man there's a person that says that so it's very clear in the board decisions whether something is going to finally decided by the by the board and the appeal language ses specifically to construct that where you have a ban on and the statute  claim under eleven ten which is the general director of connection for vision by statute that claim that that was denied finally tonight in two thousand nine hundred ninety eight by the board what was sent back  nature of that action there's going to be some finality associated with your decision and sometimes there's going to be pursuit of the to do to assist some non phonetic and what v a has done over the years has made it clear that since the difference between those chance his or her chances that wherever the appearance taken is going to say or write this is sufficiently fine we're going to review it or come back when you get a final decision two or three years later and i don't know what additional costs in legal fees the rider and then in order to preserve the right to appeal the issue which was not finally decided as we go through all of these machinations i don't think that that applies they recognize today are trying to take an active role in making sure that it was actually get their benefits as early as possible stage and they're doing so in a way that's consistent with the plain language of the statute and that's consistent with the plain language of the appeal line and the appeal provisions that are attached to support decisions that frankly i think outside of this case may be consistent with the way our babies tend to act when dealing with boards they tend to peel them right away when they're adversely affected so i'm not saying and say it's really pointless for you to take this appeal has you had it was so for c span your resources on the remaining one or the claimant can say i may not have to spend my resources on the remaining claim because i've got a pretty good chance of winning this appeal and then the and then the claimant takes it or yes i mean i think with the implication in your question it would be again this goes to the individual the most veteran friendly perspective they have and that the actions court would be in the path of zisha to try to make sure that the system works smoothly by interceding at an earlier stage and would be the case of each and every veteran intertwined dr kay now if you look at the harris case itself it had two separate claims we're not talking about two issues within one play i noticed the reason i believe is a physical injury and then secondary to it was a mental disability and they felt that the court said these overlap enough that they are inextricably intertwined now that case was decided in nineteen ninety one because the first set of occasions when that when the court was created ok now we have eighteen years later and and so if i were back up into the country say look you're having all these cases that are decrease because you don't what they're going to meet the test of kara's inextricably intertwined and so we were looking at a big problem i mean that's what it would be suggestive but that's ridiculous because we know from one nine hundred ninety one you had this doctor that was pretty eighty you have another two hundred boards that were the veterans appeals decisions a year i make up this number in which some claims are finally resolved and forget about the language of claims or write some some says this claim is done and one that says it's up to the veterans which of those two regimes has been in place as a practical matter for the for the last twenty years it's never been every place where you say it's up to the veteran until what or state we're going to say that we don't have jurisdiction so it's don't come to us ok that was a test what happened in thai ruse and the case that we're talking about new is that he said what we want to create those appeals for the last twenty years i can't speak for them and i had a case called robots which is published to decide in the briefs and that and they followed my argument and followed cyrus i mean not harrison said that it's not fin versions they don't