dropped the receiver i think when she called and asked for help in this case i'm not a gambler but i would not have that i would have bet every dollar i had that mr mansfield could still be alive at that point he was on a ventilator i think for two months he was hospitalized for six months this is a horrific medical ordeal he went through now mr hickman who was the director of compensation and pension well let me explain your honor when i came into the to the case the mansfield had had no documents so we went back and i called the plaintiff's counsel in detroit but because of the seven year delay for mr hickman sledder until the the case was decided was over seven years they had prevailed on the case there was no appeal there was no issue as a routine case and the board problem let me tell you what the problem you face a problem you face as far as i can see it is that the boy halep as a fact that there was nothing in the record showing that a claim we don't know what basis for that statement was who don't know what the claim was we don't know what to watch and how can we say on the basis of that statement that therefore we should presume that there w of ninety five and tell me if i'm wrong in that that was the administrative aspect that was nice and the administrative claim that had to be file before you could thousand he asked for half a million dollars and the wife at that point had no considerable basis for that friend's benefit claims correct so it seems to me there has to be something else unless unless you argument is as long as the s f ninety five was based on the same incident that underlay the subsequent claim for veterans benefits that was enough to constitute a claim f veterans benefits i make that point is that i was i was going to search i was operated information blackout when i came into this case so i for years the district council for their litigation file but unfortunately they in the court you know keep just a bare bones they kept the pleadings in the settlement in the the order now mr hickman was looking i think at a more i infer at a more comprehensive file we don't know what  we don't know we don't know but why should but but he issued his worker and it seems to me that thirty eight see if i were three point one five four that that issues in the rearview mirror that a very senior official of the u department of veterans affairs has determined that there was good that was serious spying and now the board is interposing itself and making this very conclusory statement that he didn't review that document you know that confound me i can't say what mr hickman did or didn't know but i do know that apparently in the chain of command in the be a he sits fourth in line i think as director of compensation and benefits he put to paper and issued that letter and instructed them to develop the claims if that be true it seems to me we have to move on to thirty eight see if our three four hundred are i which says also reliant on that document and perhaps mistakenly well it's a discretionary function but he's a very high official of the v a and it seems to me in the previous case that discussion about resources and developed this and when it got back to detroit they simply threw it in a file and i didn't see it until we finally got a copy the claims while i didn't know the letter existed but in reviewing eleven fifty one together and i assume the strickland felt the same way in any of that he sent it back to detroit to be developed had they not submitted a pocket veto effectively to his order and it seems to me that the director of compensation and benefits is ordering the regional office in detroit to discharge their duties and they just scott that him and this throughout the file and and congress has been very critical of that office  are not proud of being first of the worst for regional offices in the system but we live with that every day and this is just a another example of that so had they got on with that then perhaps they would miracle that this man lived long enough and we came up first judge green apparently agreed with me because he reminded it back and then just in a very few weeks it was a second opinion issued which virtually had not a word changed and came back up before a judge take a judge take up an adopted the position secretary but but the chief judge did not we ask for panel decision and the court a law is very overwhelmed as you know the i mean even though it's not certain that he based his june ninety three letter on the s f ninety five he was reviewing a file maybe it isn't that the only thing that could have been in the father were no other submissions  from from your client with what he had he had filed for pension years before so he was he he had a twenty one five twenty six he had the the full application for that over there was nothing else though that that family had paid from one nine hundred ninety three one thousand ninety three date up to the two thousand and eight so it was it was simply the fact that the man so seriously yelling his physician was concerned that they were going with the home that  starting point for this appeal is the veterans court's finding that mr mansell first submitted her quest for section eleven fifty one benefits not over two thousand because this battle finding cannot now be challenged mr mansfield is established no error section fifty one ten of title thirty eight provides that the effective date for an award for dependents indemnity compensation shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of the application there for mr mansfield first submitted his application for these benefits in october of two thousand and the january one thousand nine hundred one effect a date that he now seeks for those benefits would be contrary to the statutory provision and t o regulations as well in fact there can be and there are no department of veterans affairs regulations that conflict with the statutory directive in section fifty one as it is now if if nothing changes designed or stand thrown the decision below and that the decision below finding the submission october two thousand to be the proper trigger but the court said that the error by the board was something that in order to the veterans benefit more not asking this take it that is my understanding of the argument as well your honor the difficulty with that argument of course is that thirty eight c f r section three point one four five dictates a different result and that's what the court below f d that particular regulatory section specifically deals with the submission of requests for benefits under section eleven fifty one and it and while it doesn't require a specific floor to be submitted to request those benefits it does require that the veteran indicate in writing an intent claim disability or dependency come station quote under the laws governing entitle me to veterans benefits unquote and that is the difficulty with the s f ninety five but we don't differently and we do have mr hickman's response well let me start by saying we are not suggesting that there have to be some magic words an informal claim can be submitted for benefits under section eleven fifty watt there's no question confirm that and that's what was looked at by the court that's what was looked at by the veteran support and they reached back to lucian up and frankly applying section three point one four five to the facts of this case that something that was done below and it's something that applying applying the law to the specific facts the case is something that's outside the court's jurisdiction it's not even properly before the court at this juncture that set the co you know our i will just note in passing that regulatory section three point one five zero is mentioned in mr man's feels brief and that section is irregular section dealing with providing forms to the prin claimants it really has no bearing on this it provides a certain forms will be brought provided vides that certain that form will be provided if their requested but that's not really what this case about three king official in their agency put pen to paper and said develop this case there may be and have been a letter from plaintiff's counselor of the family in that file that that is not in the systems of the records now and we've looked call but the government is saying that they're not trying to disturb the entitlement to june of ninety starting from june of ninety three well that's a mystery harrington just said he was making legal arguments and then judge friedman pointed out that what you're saying is he wasn't title really to anything before two thousand but he got june of ninety three and then and i'm trying to disturb that you know his position is no his position is that that their own director of compensation and benefits said that he was entitled to benefits and the night he did i asked him why hand it nobody but but the point is he had to be reviewing the litigation final as you suggested whether there were some other correspondents in there that is now in operas are the claims filed we don't know however if we assume argue window that he said three point one five four has been met then you have to apply three four hundred on and the date that in all good faith conscience justice and equity is the filing date of the s f ninety five is the earliest they can have i explain to the family you can't have the date of entry because you didn't file within one year but i don't think that the lord has any authority to make it up and do what they want to do i think they have to follow the law and they're just making a collateral attack an enron mr hickman a compromise here if he can't tell well i you know i suggested that they cut the baby in half and i and i and i think that's why this there is jurisdiction here this is this is that absolutely out of a legal matter very senior official the agency and as a discussion in the earlier case there's comedy here you know we expended a bunch of resources down in the in the federal court on the transaction occurrence that there's no factual dispute here let's not waste any money let's take care of this he sends it back to detroit to be finalized and for seven years it lies nascent in the pile and it doesn't get done in the time i guess maybe some documents were lost in the intervening seven years should that be a windfall to the government about two years of that benefit for this family this in extremis i don't think so i think i think justice and fair play and god's decision and you know district court there certainly is more than mylene notice here that these people have been harmed and flowing from that i think if you take a reasonable reading of eleven fifty one that that brings them under that umbrella i think that  council it was filed in detroit that they should have sent him out on a form which you would say is the legal issue here and you said it was a legal issue so that we have jurisdiction is whether as a matter of law an question is it is not a me i think that's legal question of the words if can the filing in the s f ninety five serve as the filing of a claim for benefits pursuant to the statute if we say it does document in the filed since the last of this fraud so with our archeology all we can determine is that for certain he placed the government on notice you know in january of ninety one and and and again here's a case where i think we meet foresee prong for that this is a situation where if they apply the regulation as i feel they should they've got to adopt that because they don't have any other documents if they've lost some documents that fine that's a colorable claim and it seems to me that that's a that's a fair and equitable application of that regulation but i just don't think there's any legal authority to take mr hickman's letter that date on mr hickman's letter there's no legal authority to assign an effective date then and so if we if we again if we assume that he's reviewing that litigation far out he's got he's got two dates there he's got the s f ninety five and the date six months later when the complaint was filed a federal district court to work with he also would then of course have the court order but it seems to me that that the logical