still most outrageous what has transpired here and what his or her veteran has had to go through with this one twenty four year old claim but as i understand it that could correct me if i'm wrong the implicit denial aspect of this case is relevant to the effective date of his calling correct to try to push back the effective  evidence blah blah blah shows there was nothing before may thirteenth two thousand and five are you telling me that he was awarded compensation in two thousand but this board made a fact finding there's no evidence prior to two thousand and five how i confused do you understand my confusion thousand what about on the i'm going back to appendix page forty three there's two different things listed there near the there's the one that says expansion in title meant decisions permanent in total from three six two thousand which i think you're referring confused me enough that i really did mansur is his what has he been receiving the a in a portion of a pension from naser eighteenth two thousand and five forward looking or has he been unlike a lot of cases mr carpenter where you seem to be at odds with the government it seems that the government agreed with you one three separate occasions that the board mishandled this case and that you filed joint motions for  curiosity i believe those were filed before your involvement in the camerons i know that's right but who drafted them to your knowledge with a draft of the government drafted by the government and so when we interpret stipulations are contracts we generally interpret them portion of this county is that it would seem to me whether it's two thousand or two thousand and five there will be there were fact findings with respect to the evidence that would support disqualification a on duty to regulations that are in play obviously we don't have jurisdiction to address any questions of fact or the application of lot of fact you know you did on your own so my point is that if there effective date of the evidence but your honor that those fact finding are inconsistent with the well let me ask you one other question relevant to the which is when a veteran files a claim i'm trying to understand the nature of how the system works in terms of effective filing date and i understand that there's a regulation that says whether it's an original claim or reopen a claim or a claim for increase the effective filing date is the earlier of either of two things when the original kate claim was filed i'm sorry can i ask you to stop it's the mikes picking you up and i can hear anything it's very loud so please don't anyway so when the regulation says the earliest effective date for any of those claims would be either of two things the date of the original claim or the date when entitlement arose and stick with me for a second i guess what here's my problem if i see this case as there having been a claim in one thousand nine hundred three and it was never adjudicated what does that mean for effective filing date it was finally educated in two thousand and five when he had presented what really looks like a quite a formal repetitive claim something you filed earlier doesn't the government have a duty to assist him in developing this claim shouldn't they at that point give him an opportunity under all of the rules and regulations to at least supplement with evidence that says ok now you found in my favor in two thousand and five now let me show you that infirmities that i have that require even assistance actually also existed in one nine hundred ninety three i mean is there anything i help me from a regulatory or statutory standpoint to understand what obligation if any the government had is some mechanism by which i can say that the government screwed up in that they should have allowed him to present evidence or develop the claim or demonstrate since they failed to recognize the claim for so many decades and then when finally formally presented with it they think it legally that he was entitled to the relief that is there some mechanism by which he ought to be allowed to go back and show through new evidence that i had the same problems in ninety three you just didn't help me piece of an issue that has been conceded to four decisions as having been recently read that he was in the lead of a to ten and that then becomes a factual question for the v a to determine and do with the benefit of the duty to students i won't eat up your time sure but if my it's my understanding that he went in for cataract surgery and you're not to like this word but it was botched and it left him blind entirely in one eye nothing you know and then twenty two hundred in the other eye and so he's seeking compensation for it he's a veteran who had a surgery to veterans hospital that left him far worse than when he had gone in and this is compensation related to that it was deemed in two thousand and five that he was was deemed in right after the surgery in ninety three when he filed a claim it was doing that he was entitled to some compensation for this in two thousand and five when he presented more evidence it was deemed he was entitled to even more compensation and what this case is about is trying to think everyone agrees that the forward i was not aware there's this implicitly raised klein and there was never any when nobody ever reached out to mr bats and when he made this reference to opinions one of the early online board opinions which supposedly thoroughly reviewed all of the evidence all of the have been ins and concluded that there wasn't sufficient evidence to  q community right now that i'm aware of right so so this is a person who's been a man throughout his entire time and yet repeatedly throughout the board refers to him as a her and she i assume because his first name is additional evidence is that good enough to satisfy the board's duty to assist his aborts to assist doesn't just include telling the veteran what he needs to submit which you don't do here but it also includes helping him to help that evidence in two thousand and five was well understood that there was a formal claim that her been made at that time but we now know that there was an informal claim that was made in one thousand nine hundred eighty three and that informal claim counts ye so the question then remains well i had the examiners been aware of the fact that this claim was informally made all the way back in ninety three maybe they're assessing it would have been different a yes i was really because there's a two thousand notation in a medical record here that he had trouble dressing himself so it was never addressed by the board in any of it anything but it is in the group so you know about it there's a two thousand notation in one of his examination  etc trouble dressing itself so here's my question to you if i was a doctor our view examiner and i'm a value waiting you for blindness in one eye and legal blindness in the other eye what is the likelihood and if i'm not evaluating you for whether you need aid and assistance in your daily life by virtue of that disability what do you think the likelihood is that i would ask and or even note in the medical file that he needs help going to the bathroom by someone else what are the chances i'd ask you that  person with a particular entry is going to be responsive to it like he had a claim for a n n a which is i think i need assistance and aid in my daily life and nobody in the v process and i have zero doubt in my mind that the secretary believed when he entered into all these joint remains that the board was screwing up time and again that they were taking a flippin approach to the resolution of this man's claim i've never seen the secretary enter into so many joint motions for reading and it warms my heart to see that the government was as interested in seeing mr bateson be protected is a former veteran that served our country and worse yet was under blind by a botched surgery performed at the v a the government did everything right and the board kept refusing to do what even the government told it had to do that's why you entered into story joint motions for remained in the end the board writes that opinion and just says what it says it just seems so tremendously unfair to mr matz and it seems like the government was on his side all the way through and it seems like the government in the end sort of gave up and said all right well you know for starters the charm i guess you know we got to just kind of we got to kind of live with this at this point why why did the v a do this why was the board so hell bent on denying the spectrum benefits which even the government repeatedly corrected them they needed to address the need to focus on i mean there's stuff in those joint remains that seem pretty strongly worded about the government's belief that the evidence he provided of not being able to drive is the kind of evidence so in trying to focus this court's attention on how this case came before the war and the war or what you said page forty three where it says k one special to march sixth two thousand which you are saying r a n a compensation benefits verses what it appears to say is the monthly pension only kicks in and as of five thirteen two thousand and five what i'm trying to no dispute between eight hundred ninety three and two thousand this veteran was not receiving served connected compensation he was receiving not service connected education because he was a work i'm veteran and it was to be a valid and totally and permanently not relate to either a service connected injury or disease or to injury sustained as a result of the medical group in two thousand he made his claim for compensation which changes  five in the other as being effective march sixth two thousand and you're saying the avenues to prove both were be the same the way that i read that position is that when they granted the benefit in two thousand and they did not do that so are you representing that he has been getting the same amount of money got came in the form of back pay but basically from two thousand or one he's been getting the same amount of money meaning there wasn't a big jump in two thousand and five if you put that back i simply got back pay if you put the