a federal claims i have knowledge of their credentials and i am satisfied that they possess the necessary qualifications it's hard to believe that i have been on the bench for a little over a year it's been the time of excitement hard work and learning in the city of you have been there with me every step of the way that city o discussions on the law which i can only describe as delicious there is a corking though you have a serious cautious approach to the law that is a hallmark of greatness i cannot help and that you are in times but you are also extremely smart a great writer and an editor who spend knows no end if you are efficient and then economic i know that you will bring scholarship professionalism and success in your careers and for my part i promise to work hard to help to hold up my end of the bargain thank you for working eleven eleven this court encamped noted that the statute specifies that the presumption of soundness can only be rebutted by clear and unmistakable evidence the v a at thirty eight c f r three point three zero four b one  defines met the medical evidence needed to rebut the presumption of sounds and that evidence must include an analysis of the accepted medical principles or a thorough analysis of the evidentiary showing and a careful correlation of all material facts in this case the veterans court relied upon what it referred to as a rational basis for the medical opinion in this court a rational basis and a medical opinion does not equate to an analysis of the accepted is a question of law this court as well as the court below has held that whether or not the meets its evidentiary burden to rebut the presumption of soundness is a question of law and therefore we are dealing with the undisputed fact of the evidence in this case is a single medical report it's in the joint appendix pages fifty six to fifty eight and that opinion is the opinion which was relied upon by both the v a the board and the court below to rebut the presumption sounds as a question of law is whether or not that opinion meets the legal standard that is required by the provisions of three point three zero four of the one creates a presumption that correct or nothing was noted at his entrance even though apparently it was known to his recruiter that he had been seen for and hospitalized for the treatment of schizophrenia and as a result of it having not been noted in other words no disability was noted at the time in which he went through his physical examination he is entitled to the benefit of the presumption examined in the medical doctor when they evaluated him know the basis of his prior hospitalization which doctor the earlier the entrance exam or the one that's at issue in this case at issue in this case yes yes she did so her her evaluation was based also a knowledge of  condition prior to entering into service yes and mr katter it does not dispute that there is clear and unmistakable evidence based upon his hospitalization for schizophrenia that he had schizophrenia prior to entering service but as this court noted in wagner there are two prongs to the presumption of sounds and the second prong requires that the v a must presume that a condition was aggravated during service unless the in this case dr harris found that there was in fact a permanent increase she found that after a single hospitalization for service that the breakdown which took place in service constituted a permanent increase in the severity of his schizophrenia but she then went on to say that she had a belief that this was the natural progression it is our position that a statement of belief is not consistent with the v a s own regulation of that the record indicates that they looked at absolutely none but the statute and the v a s own regulation requires more they require clear and unmistakable evidence that statement of belief that medical opinion poll opinion that is based upon excepted medical principles there is nothing in the v a examination that is relied upon this case that indicates that her leave was based upon any accepted medical principle and whatever that medical principle might have been for her belief she never articulated it so you're saying that every time we're dealing with one of these presumptions that the sufficiency of the evidence to overcome it is a because like a legal issue because it is a question of the legal sufficiency there is a legal standard that is imposed by statute that statute is eleven eleven the v a by regulation has defined what that evidence must include and it must include an analysis of accepted medical principles and there is nothing in this examination that discusses any accepted medical principles it takes those medical principles that are unstated as a give that is not what is contemplated by three point three zero four b want what is contemplated by three point three zero four b one is an analysis of what those accepted principles are in other words you are what the doctor said was there was a permanent increase she said that what happened during services resulted in a permanent increase in this man's preexisting condition but she gave no further explanation as to why she had a belief that it was the natural progression and what she did talk about was stressors stressors has nothing to do with this either pre service stressors or the fact that he noted no stressors during service the relevant question is whether there was or wasn't a permanent increase and she says there was and then it was her obligation or excuse me the v a s obligation to solicit from her an analysis of why she had that belief based the two thousand and five examination that was fairly quite folson in detail it was really good focusing on the harris fire but what about the eight i guess he gave two reports one is  i mean that that seems to be a very lengthy detail for first one and then a little clarification in the second one but it does not address your honor the pertinent question of the second component of the presumption of soundness which is why is there or wasn't there a permanent increase or scrutiny was there wasn't there an increase in severity during the period of active duty that was above and beyond what was predicting and whether or not there was clear and unmistakable evidence that that was a natural progression i thought what about what he says a j eighty four significant impact and this is you know in the context of these this problem was manifested in a very short time after the end of the service and the stuck there are avery i guess gave a very thorough exam and that's statement of it's hard to imagine that the military had a significant impact is at odds with dr harris's opinion that there was in fact a permanent increase that took place and it is the permanent increase that was what was required to be presumed essentially dr avery takes issue with whether there was any increase or not but that's the part of that presumption of soundness that exists in the second prong of the presumption of aggravation but she said there was an increase but that it was the natural progression and not specifically do the specific military stress or that that's correct your honor and the question is whether or not that second portion about natural progression does or does not meet the imposed legal standard by both congress in the statute and by the a in their own regulations and that is a question of law as to whether or not that statement of belief is sufficient to meet the thorough analysis that is required by the a zone regulation  grapple with whether or not that is or is not a question was and we believe that based upon the holdings at the veterans court that this court should adopt that view and that it is a simple question of law whether or not the evidence that is presented in the record does or does not meet the legal requirements about the statutes and the regulation i see that i have had this issue been raised by you in other cases case that was dealt with the question as it's presented in this case where you have a clear opinion that can be measured against the stamp act i will reserve the r the court mr katter at was in service for just eleven days when he was hospitalized and diagnosed with schizophrenia not one but two medical opinions as have been discussed previously  has been met with regard to whether mr katter had schizophrenia prior to entering service the court below said yes the question is merely whether the eleven days is basic training  disability wouldn't win week or two weeks of the cancer could that be sufficient to trigger a more rapid or increased progression of the disability it might be your honor eighty saying a challenge to legal sufficiency of the evidence tests whether the evidence in question as a matter of law is capable of meeting the apocryphal legal standard strictly speaking evidence is said to be insufficient and will only in the opinions in this case or if medical opinions were not an acceptable type of evidence to overcome the presumption of soundness intent the question was whether after there is a clean bill of health whether any post facto medical opinion looks to that reviews the facts that reviews the record and most of the medical opinions on the record did so that look at the actual question whether there was an aggravation of schizophrenia just at that point anything further requires this court to weigh the evidence and determine in context what the word believe means whether that's sufficient whether her statement cited eleven fifty three and the corollary is c f r three point three zero six a which talks about the natural progression of the disease being able to overcome the presumption of aggravation by military service and dr harris made a clear finding or not a finding or a clear statement that it was her opinion or her belief that this was a natural progression of the disease she did this after examining mr katter after looking at his records after trying to see if there was anything in particular to mr cameron basic service or basic training that could have aggravated his schizophrenia and she came to a medical conclusion that the court below relied upon and that is legally sufficient and anything more would be a question of fact or fact and appl yes both were discussed there was in the veterans court more stress placed on and more discussion of dr harris's opinion but certainly both were discussed and i believe  dismissed for lack of jurisdiction but to begin with the discussion of walter walter was a severance case in which this was waltzers original grant of service connection was severed and then she brought a claim a clear and unmistakable error attacking that severance and the discussion in quotation that was provided by counsel dealt with the legal sufficiency of whether or not there was or was not clear and unmistakable evidence to sever in this context we're talking about a statutory presumption a presumption that precludes or allows the appellant to be substituted from the burden of submitting evidence as to his fitness at the entrance and it is to be present and under that presumption as this court analyzed in wagner that presumption has to process it is the second prong that is at issue here if the d a s position is adopted that all that is needed is a medical opinion in the record that renders both the statutory criteria its own regulatory criteria meaningless a presumption because of the argument lead to this situation where every presumption today we're supposed to look at the evidence in  way it's sufficient to determine whether there's enough of it to rebut the presumption what yes it does your honor but quite candidly i don't believe that that is an onerous burden on either the court below which has adopted view that they will review de novo as a question of law the legal sufficiency to rip ott anymore than it is a burden on this court to do and it is important to sustain both the intent of congress and the benefit that congress has given to veterans that if they enter service and no condition is noted then they are entitled to the presumption of soundness until that presumption is taken away as a matter of law and has to be cleared of the staple evidence the board and the found in the court affirm that there was such a level of evidence and you're saying no there wasn't isn't that application of law to fact no your hon it's not because it's in the context of a presumption and a presumption and that standard of evidence and the sufficiency of that evidence has been regarded by the court below and treated in this case as a do novo review with no deference to the board's determination and a new determination made by the court below that were different though our jurisdictional constraints are different than those of the that in this court when when the law is being applied in the first instance and the law that is to be applied in the first instance here is the presumption goes to the veteran unless rebut it and it is found to have been rebutted by the court below as a matter of law and that question of law should be subject to the same not deferential to nova review by this court because that is the only way to sustain the intent of congress and that congress wanted veterans to have that lens of three point three zero for the one and if through the lens of three point three zero four b one they meet the legally sufficient requirement of clear and unmistakable evidence you want to turn this around for a moment imagine that mr that would not be but this is because it arises in the context of a statutory presumption that involves a evidentiary burden that this court has found has been shifted from