morning your honour's plays or five minutes for about a yes i think you may place the order my name is max and min representing the veteran in this matter crawford the issue here is whether the department of veterans affairs  and withhold either granting or denying a primary claim thereby putting it into the v a s version of purgatory and then adjudicate a secondary cler well we have here is a veteran who was originally granted service connection for it's a problem you can go back and and live again the other claim is if you want right we certainly can mitigate the primary claim because that one is not over yet however the problem will be secondary claim was problem was that if the board here had said well you lose on your secondary plane because your primary claim is no good you have a pretty good argument they can say that they said that their secondary claim is because you have also c onnection to the palace of the the the secondary claim was the only claim i dish with the board the board did not address the primary claim whatsoever the the medical opinion does address so that's the issue with the bill of decide that is the issue that the board decided but it only and the court but only it addressed it on a primary basis not on a secondary basis the arguments that we could present on a secondary basis are that the veterans can foot condition x causes him to be unable to exercise caused him to gain weight caused him to be off of his feet which thereby caused the peripheral vascular disease we cannot make those arguments because the primary claim was not there so the only arguments that a veteran could make before the board and the only arguments that the court would accept or that the house of alex claim is a primary condition meaning that it was primarily due to some incident that happened in service if it were allowed to address it on a secondary basis the arguments change completely and that's the problem that we have here we want a lot of bring forth those arguments and the veteran was in law to bring forth his arguments because the claim was denied without his there that the claim was the secondary can dish it was didn't den without the primary condition being adjudicated so the arguments would change completely whether the i know the board addresses that and the board's language sounds like it does addresses arguments but it really does because it's only addressing it as a primary condition not as a secondary we see secondary conditions all the time for example if you if you're a veteran any of post traumatic stress to see if you t s d might cause you to drink alcohol and alcohol drinking might cause you related to the foot condition and that's what we have here and you know we see these cases quite a bit where the v a just refuses to act and i know the secretary believes that a unrepresented veteran primary commission the v a has refused to issue a statement of the case on the primary fukin ition the board refused to address the primary focus mission instead they're simply addressing the secondary condition getting rid of the secondary condition and thereby not giving the veteran any recourse to pursue his claim in a proper the proper course he can't make those arguments that the full condition causes him not to exercise because those arguments aren't valid unless you have a primary service connection climb into the understanding why it is that the decision of the board of the study of the medical examiner on the board it seemed they seemed to be saying it whatever rate that the vascular disease would go away so why that seems inconsistent with the argument you're making here which is that they ignored the relationship between the helots alex  it wasn't caused by therefore that's whether you call it primary or secondary that that the issue in both cases is causation is not the issue is cause ation but they say there's no causation but you can't reach the level of cause ation unless causal connection between that and the ultimate determination of the shootings but when if you read the board's decision in the court's decision neither of them address the arguments that because of the veterans condition of his feet he was unable to exercise if you read  the medical report the medical examiner says peripheral vascular disease is most likely caused to obesity for work work after ron not been able to work out the board doesn't address that issue and the court doesn't address that issue because they don't have to because they're addressing it as a primary condition if he already had if a condition that was raided and that was granted by the board or the book or by the by the v a the board would have to address the veterans arguments that his is a secondary condition because he was unable to work out unable to exercise unable to be honest feet and that is what caused that he would still have to show at that point some sort of connection he looked and if and if the board would have line if you can the difference would be that the veteran would have the opportunity to be heard on his arguments as to whether or not his foot condition and all the issues that are associated with it meaning that he cannot stand on its feet meaning that he's unable to walk unable to run it all of those issues contributed or caused the peripheral vascular disease those arguments he was not to make he tried to make them but as you can tell from the board's decision and you can tell from the court's decision they don't even mention those arguments because they don't have to hear the difference is is minute and it's picking points but if you look at what the better and said all along he has said my foot difference is the folk in addition cost him to be an able to exercise which then causes the vascular disease that's his argument that's the crux of this argument and that's the only argument you can make and you can't be successful in that argument unless you are service connected for the foot this one and the board doesn't address if you look on page one twelve of the joint index on the issues and issues not even brought up before and that's why we have a strong due process your argument that the veteran is not been given an opportunity to be heard on this issue he's not being able to ease frankly being ignored by the v a and having that plane sandwich been pushed to the back of the line but no for the question of an honest always real ok thank you this case that couldn't happen because as you pointed out there's no causal connection between the two diseases so even if you did does hat car service connection for the how it's now i guess he's not going to be able to get it for the that mr kenyon suggest disease i go back to my p t s d example because i think it's a lot clearer to understand because these diseases are a little more complicated if if you have p t s d and let's say the city same situation exists ok where you had  exact same case file here you're going to see the board and the boards are going to say well you don't have or your throat cancer is not related to service and it's not related to p t s d and because p t s d doesn't cause but that's the point at which the devil inches yes it does in my case and here's why and that's what he's trying to do but that they haven't addressed it at all that that's really goes to the merits of whether the eastlink the void has messed up the factual determination but that's not the veteran had a foot condition he was unable to exercise we hear his arguments we hear what his evidence submitted and that is what we disagreed with that we wouldn't be here so you put in evidence or planted evidence of he was unable to exercise because discuss it is if there was a primary claim to talk about there was no primary claim here to talk about if you got throat cancer sorry it's not due to you having p t s d that's different then you have throat cancer it's not due to your alcohol veterans obesity hypertension and hyperlinked look at the mia are due to him not being able to walk the exam or doesn't address that issue because he doesn't have to the board doesn't address it because they don't have to in the court doesn't address it because they don't have to because the