that when you're working with the statutory term like substantially you're already in the factual application aren't you which of course we're not going to or you know   requirements and therefore there was a need and an intermediate level for those parents to do a put on able to earn an income the inability to earn an income i believe is the factor which addresses consideration for the benefits you already have been determined to be so severely disabled that is totally disabled now isn't that able to earn an income at home that's a in the statute if for example suppose you have somebody who can move freely in and out of the house but for whatever reasons that say just emotional difficulties or whatever simply can't hold a respects in the community quite freely and wouldn't be someone that we would any of us would call helstone but nonetheless is unable to earn an income with that person to fall within the statute as you see it i don't think that holding a job that would be essentially irrelevant if he's able to come and go relatively free well it is i believe because i think that's what regulations intended to address  having said something that's different from what the court has said i've forgotten the name of the case that you provided for us but in the case that you provided for the whole case yes i always thought it yes i do think that those two that mr l limitations unless he or she could go out and earn an income is that a correct determination by the court below in how it is that in conflict with the law speaker of the nation i think those two decisions can be read as firmly i think the it's possible that intel decision the court is only focusing in on the medical issue of whether medical leave in health for medical treatment takes you out of the the possibility of which a court noted in howard quoting from the howard case which states respect specifically that congress intended to provide additional compensation for veterans durance unable to overcome their particular disability and leave the house in order to earn an income as opposed to an inability to leave the house at all if that's a correct statement of congressional intent isn't there really a conflict between examination  the secretary actually cited to the senate report just for for it a different proposition just to pitch it just to focus in on the language that that it refers differences substantially conforming means that you can leave the house for medical purposes but not who are earning provisions that make a difference that you can leave the house for medical purposes but you cannot leave the house for earning purpose he cannot earn income that make a difference in the determination of definition of substantial co does that make a difference but how we should define substantially comp well i mean i think that that's a decision that's an issue that the federal court has an act at either of these cases the income aspect of this and i don't know that it would change the outcome of this case i don't think regulation and there's no there's nothing about in the statute or regulation i think that mr lost is trying to do just that contrary to what his united states and i think the court arrived at very made that very very effectively through his questioning showing how there's not a real nexus between whether somebody is able to work and whether somebody is substantially their courses if somebody can work at least in the sense of holding down a full time job that would seem to be perhaps the best evidence that they were permanently housebound assuming the job was not judged perishes example how so so at least in one direction it seems to be a permanent inquiry the question is does it apply in the other direction so that somebody who can do the job but can move freely throughout the community would by virtue of the flush out the statute that's your position i think that's true and it's consistent with the state i think that's right and you're also saying i believe that the statutory application really depends upon a multitude of factual inquiries rather has to be viewed in context the veterans court this mentions the fact that there is no contrary medical because mr last had suggested to the veterans court that the medical records required events that are unlikely to transpire based on the record again supports his view and taken with the chords affirmative the detailed analysis that was done by the board that i mentioned earlier and the board's consideration of specific arguments and concerns raised by mr last like his concerns that he was having problems eating or leaving the home there's no sense in which the board failed to consider whether it's the last count an act