random figure that they decided to put in i mean i'm trying to figure out that they seem to say you're entitled to the regular cat meds and all of the evidence of sales that you produced in two thousand and seven which i looked at showed you know the skyride medicine was fifteen dollars twenty dollars sometimes thirty dollars you had the only other thing you had in there was a flea and tick prevention which was part of that total all of which seems like regular medicine that would always be re make sure one thing the cats are still alive right are still right just checking so given that you know this is medicine i assume is medicine they're going to take for the rest of their life correct so why well you're i'm glad you asked this question i have a healthy cat and i there and not being home alone miss a link works and is gone ten eleven hours a day for house counsel the whole companion is not an issue right the board has said you are entitled to payment for the meds and we only question with regard to the amount of meds you don't have to defend the companion ok isn't that right i mean i know that that is correct so the only thing they have said though is we're going to award to the amount that it's that it costs you and all of the evidence in the record is clear that it's thirty two point seven five and all of a sudden at some point they lowered the number during the many iterations of review and i can't see any reason as to why and we have to look at that number and say is it supported by substantial evidence it's not your honor there's no justification which the repairs are being incurred and they are documented two years because this case went up to the board and then back to the to show the a j bridge second decision we got two years worth of expenses so the court has an unusually broad picture of twenty just me yes we please respond to the questions and you alone ok and they have to be answers based on the record ok thank you good to the repairs are for the two cars that are driven there are only two cars driven if there's record has the receipts and it shows what part of the floor this is not something we've picked a number we have received and they were there in front of the agent and she just said in two sentences these are speculative what would be the procedures if you know  if for example well let me ask you first is there an extant amount that they're proposing the cheapie i know they proposed three fifty one point do they have another number they're proposing one ninety five cents that's the gap that they think there is or that been no there's been no further proposal by ok well let's say they imposed one hundred ninety five based on the repairs and let's say in two thousand and eight two thousand and nine the car breaks down completely has to be replaced that by a new car to commute in and the car payment is four hundred dollars a month what's the procedure for you to then if there is one go back and say excuse me but now my car expenses are that high oh here is my car payment i can't pay the one ninety five anymore how would that work well if he would go back in with another petition for change of circumstances but first you have to have the circumstances right currently the whole statutory system in terms of determining financial hardship is based on a current determination of what they're going to have from that point going forward and at the point this we were talking about here it was from the end of two thousand and seven to two thousand and eight the two thousand and eight year well we don't know what those figures were they're not in this record and they're not part of this case but that's what was the determination that the board's a j was looking at was what were the expenses going to be in two thousand and afford to repay any amount if you put the car expenses back in you see that they're actually upside down what isn't missing from the government's assessment this cases they were notified in april two thousand six that she would not be getting the disability money for the insurance that came with the disability they immediately lost twelve hundred dollars in income from us and they've been trying to get back onto a right side up footing and they're not there yet mr hendricks i need kind of a more global question all right we were here quibbling about cat litter and auto expenses which the judge below gave a great deal of time to we don't really review facts here on appeal how can we question what's been done by the judge below you're in a much more lengthy proceeding than we have you're out of this is a matter of law this is a matter of whether these expenses are ordinary and necessary expenses and the judge devoted two sentences to these are future parts bins as they're speculative i won't consider that that's all she said she didn't have there's no link the analysis is no one else it is that they were considered expenses must be put into the calculation not considered and them thrown away were were discarded considered as part of the calculation to see if there's a financial hardship you have to plug in a number there i would have no problem if you plug it in over and say well i think there's are high so i'm only going to get two thousand which again to zero it's zero for twenty nine hundred dollars zero for thirty one hundred dollars so if you plug that in is over two hundred dollars a month that takes the one hundred ninety five  the board found and so it's a there are also lots of errors in her decision which the court did correct we pointed out at least at least eight mathematical errors that she made to me corrected all of those and got to the one ninety five figure but there's no mention of what she did here i think it just escaped their attention counsel suppose that we can say that there is substantial evidence for everything the board did so that her monthly expenses are properly calculated at sixty six zero five and her monthly income is sixty eight hundred with a difference of one hundred ninety five dollars the regulation still says that they can only there's financial hardship if she needs substantially all of her current income did you argue and argue arguing to us i want to make sure i understand your argument that given the very very small difference even though she is not technically in the red if we affirm that that still constitutes substantially all of her income such that the board should be able to continue to go after her i believe that the percentage that she has left over at one hundred ninety five is so small it and that's what it is giving is that's giving a zero for the veterinary expenses and as zero for the car repairs if you put anything in and drive that number anywhere down close to one hundred dollars a month you've been reached a point where this clearly has to be a wa i'm wondering speaking of waiver whether you made this argument that's wondering because absolutely or less well most of the briefing to be about the specifics of car repair and cat that and things like that but i'm wondering did you make the big picture bigger argument even if you accept everything they say as accurate she still this constitutes substantially all we made an argument below your honor and i believe it's in the brief that it's what the law requires regular basis but to save the rest of your may please the court the board recently determined that it is like it was not entitled to a waiver of one of the arguments that is the legacy council makes is that there was an erroneous legal standard applied and that the board look into whether or not these expenses are regular  seventy a month to twenty dollars some had she support supporting documentation for every month over all of two thousand and six and two thousand and seven the meds were always the same in fact they went up in price at one point you know because meds just do that they will become more expensive over account of her medication and i certainly see what you're saying here but my guess is and maybe i'm wrong because i haven't done the math as i'm sitting here but my guess is she says medication routine twenty dollars than average she says average monthly veterinary cost seventy dollars i'm betting that she moved some of the routine medication list in the eleven twenty nine and over into that as part of it but maybe i'm wrong i haven't done the math but look at we look at eleven twenty nine when i'm sick to do it there's eleven twenty nine shows every single month month by month what the routine medicine is right now i think that if you look at each of these months i think that some for bieber could you address the more global question of whether substantially all of our income is consumed by her expenses mess around a little closer i think that that was not an argument that was made of a low because as you know been the way that it must be and opium has done it for the last twenty years and so in this case else in the way that you're telling me it's a matter of law the way old always determines whether it's substantially all is as long as you've got that fifty room for that fifty dollars butler buffer then it's not substantially all correct they all in that and that's what happened this takes the added part of the expenses are not such a dollars in the expenses that calculate they're not real expenses they're this buffer to make it you know right so what about that i mean she had eighty they had eighty dollars debra here i had eighty dollars a month of surplus and nonetheless they thought it was a hardship when exactly this reason needs substantially all of her income despite the fact that she had notice or something that old cars are bennett it prepares more than zero at least or that if one doesn't have an old car and once stops repairing it that one if one is going to get to work will need to buy a new car which will be even more expensive this isn't that's at this sort of hard to win going on because underneath the evidence to support that presented before the board what kind of evidence could you say to support the future that your car back periodically to see if but what is in charge here one ninety five a month based on no lottery fare right and then the next month she has some auto repair she will have to come back in i guess and say excuse me but this month i can't make the one of the five that's no employer or from somebody repeatedly didn't she call and say why are you sending me these i'm making more money now i'm not sure i should be getting these should i be getting the sense nobody ever got back to her and told her no you shouldn't be getting these is that the way it well you know  better than she's not at fault because she was affirmatively trying reaching out and saying are you sure i'm entitled to this and basically you guys were telling her yes that if you're not well let well and so isn't it i mean isn't that something that ought to be factored into the waiver available information that she could have found that she was like on the internet so you know the board of the deal you have and yes i think what i think i believe with one person said was that i think they're concerned that i'm in again i'm not trying to defend this as a as a response but i think that are some are concerned that if they tell people what the limit is and people sort of match their numbers to that to the number they give them again not trying to find out that's not an issue in this case the issue is you know the substantial evidence to support the board's decision and i think that would you had a minute to mr hendricks time so that were bought even thank you you may proceed on your own it's a couple points i'd like to cover first of all the fact that was four years of overpayments does go to the size of the overpayments and the size of the overpayment if we start with one ninety five as a figure means it was a linkable be paying approximately one thousand years the celing is in her mid fifties she will not be working another nineteen years this is a debt that cannot possibly be over to be paid during her lifetime her working lifetime and she doesn't have a federal pension waiting for at the end of the rainbow she has only her for one k i say more and i ask you whether the an hour per month to be adjusted down i had to buy a new car i now have a four hundred dollars payment i can't pay anything there's but it's the exception and not the rule what we need to do today is determine whether she really has any realistic probability of paying this back council side of the alexander case those are not the same kind of expenses that are not really we do we lose that by she's a realistic probability of paying it back i mean whether it's a financial hardship whether there's a financial hardship involved i'm sorry but given the shorthand that i've come to sort this but there's a financial hardship involved here if she only has one of the board's numbers we're taught at one hundred ninety five dollars extra and that's nothing for years and nothing for the mary metz we put in statistics of what of a similar amount if this court decides it'll only be one hundred fifty dollars a month instead of almost two hundred fifty dollars a month so be it that this number drives the number down to almost zero there is not enough wiggle room here the substantially all test is going to be met if the court allows either the car or her expenses were some combination of the car repair expenses and the veterinary expenses the vet never expenses are set out in eleven twenty seven the routine medication twenty dollars was the rate in in january two thousand and seven but it got up to thirty dollars in december two thousand and seven you know that kind of stuff goes up everything goes up what doesn't go up his income sometimes so her in the home is actually less now than it was them that's not in the record what we have here is expenses that you know council suggests that we should have hired a garage mechanic and given expert testimony they didn't even show up at the he we presented the hearing evidence we put senate evidence again in a second sort of circumstance there was no objection there's no doubt in anybody's mind that these are real receipts they're printed out on real paper and they're there in detail we took them out seven to ten years right but there are other items that have to replace one similar cycle so if it's this one thing this year it's something else another year means that in these are older cars these are cars that are regularly going to go in for maintenance repairs we're talking about a complete just the regular whatever it is fifty thousand mile checkup or thirty thousand mile check or whatever your dealer i mean that's not in here these are not just repairing broken items this is going in and having the car totally full looked at  totally totally doing the complete make an impact what we got was with oil changes they put in not money for oil changes and even then didn't give us enough money for all the world changes that the manufacturer recommends you're honest i think this is a case where if you take a reasonable look at these expenses they've been documented and the applicable tags which the ford has consistently applied but didn't apply here were an expense can be substantiated by appropriate evidence we submit that this was appropriate evidence it must be accepted as ordinary necessary unless a person readable prudence would see it as a luxury and extravagance repairing your car so you can get to work is not a luxury or extravagance there no income of that car doesn't run if that part of it run they have to buy another car a car repair expenses or requirement for her life the veterinary expenses and expenses for the cat i guess reasonable people might be able to differ a little bit but the benefit of the