post service disability and an injury event or disease which occurred in service is just that it's an opinion it is a binary choice between a relationship or a non relationship this appeal seeks a world of law for determining the proper method for consideration of conflicting expert medical opinions on the issue of nexus if we have a situation here in which the board or the betterments or hits then we're going to give the same way to every opinion regardless of the credentials of patients in person it could be would seem to me that you might have an argument there was something wrong but i don't see the need of the board or the government supports such an argument and i believe under this court's dearth prudence that what an issue of law is presented at the veterans court election not to address it but that does not preclude this court from addressing it that clearly this court can in its discretion choose not to address it i don't dispute that and yes there could have been a better set of circumstances in which to raise the issue but for mr mullen's he was in a situation in which he had a extremely a service related injury and and i'm certainly not a board in the v a pointed out in their respective decisions that that was problematic and and why should we believe you know you're saying is a highly respected doctor but but even leaving aside that that contradicting testimony on his own testimony is is suspect but with respect your honor i don't believe that that's the case here what we have is a doctor who simply being candid about the record and the difficulty that is presented any time any expert is asked to draw a conclusion about the relationship between an event that happened while on active duty and they post service dylan why couldn't the v a in the morning look at that and say well this is conflicting and you know you're arguing this interpretation of it but we take this other interpretations question of that and therefore we don't believe it and i would suggest your honor where where the credentials are comparable that is the general rule and that is the rule that should be followed but in the context of both a nexus opinion and where there is a clear disparity how do you get to question the law if as a matter of fact they look at him and say we just don't believe  your honor i don't believe it was that cut and dry he gave a opinion saying that it would be difficult to arrive at a decision then the criteria was explained to him under the standards on the v that he doesn't have to give an opinion to a degree of medical certainty he merely has to give an opinion as to whether is at least as likely as not and he went further than that and said that it was more likely than not and i agree statutory three point so i three point two of the code of federal regulations because they both as the supreme court has recognized and this court has recognized in gold that in where you might have circumstances where the there are strong arguments on both sides there are strong credentials on both sides but what you're saying is that means you you as a matter of law you have to say you have to do it in an objective analysis of the credentials and say whatever that person says goes in the unique circumstance of offering a nexus opinion because a nexus opinion is simply a binary choice between an opinion that something is related to service versus an opinion that something is not related to service all the v a s expert did was to draw the conclusion that she did not believe that there was a relationship i understand that in this case it's kind of easy to say one has more credentials than the other because on faber it's pretty obvious that that one has an at least a different set of the competence of the medical examiner no we did not meet because under this court's rule there isn't a basis in my view to make that objection because of the difference that it is and says they have to make the objection if i wish to challenge the competency what i wish to challenge is not that the witness is not competent to make that opinion but simply when you've got competing or conflicting opinions on the very narrow issue of medical nexus what about grades in medical school not going to consider qualifications at all that you have an pretty good argument that that was an error of law but we're the presumption comes from the that you presume that somebody with better qualifications should be given more weight it seems to me is is difficult i don't see where that comes from it's not a standard approach in the district courts and medical malpractise litigation there is no one there's no because we are in a uniquely not adversarial system and in that uniquely non adversarial system the benefit of the doubt is supposed to be resolved in favor of the better now in the context of a nexus of it in where you have this why disparity in credentials there ought to be a rule that at least directs a presumption to be afforded that the greater credentialed expert opinion should be given greater weight unless that can be w well it does not comport but if there is such a rule the rule has to cut both ways there can't be a rule that only favors one side or the other although i think that presumption of confidence comes very close but let me or for one more thing before i sit down mr mullins is in a position now in which as a result of this decision in which which he lost on the basis of this adverse nexus opinion that is for all practical purposes not possible for him to reassert his claim there is no way to produce new and material evidence on this this is a fact that has been established and the fact that you bring in another expert as new material evidence opportunity to fill those and he didn't do it well i don't recall that specifically that very well me may be the case but it's our position that he did that when he came forward with the second opinion was that it was more likely than not as opposed to his earlier observation about the difficulty of the task of reserve the balance my t a presumption that the the better qualified medical expert should carry the day that would it would seem right counter to the requirement  which would run counter to the presumption that the v a s selected medical practitioner giving the opinion has provided an adequate and competent opinion right  qualified doctor and your honor in this case there is no suggestion that mr martin dr isaacs opinions were not competent but t a weighed the probative weight of those opinions and weighed the probative weight of the opinion of the examiner and both the board and to be a court found that in this case the examiners opinion  carried greater probative weight because she considered all of the evidence of record because she addressed the finding at the veterans exit exam that there was no no back problem the fact that there was a thirty year gap she government assessment that the treating physicians opinion controls unless there is absolutely no support for that opinion so and it's workable they do it all the time why wouldn't  presumption like that only in this context be workable well your honor for the same reasons that this court has rejected that specific rule in the veteran's context that the court addressed that the pros rule in white  and found particularly in light of the very detailed and structured v a regulations that are established for veterans claims that it is the  i would simply point out that the the record here does not support the rule that mr mullins is seeking and the rule itself as has been pointed out in  the preceding colloquy doesn't necessarily adhere to the benefit of the doubt well there are certainly situations where if this rule were imposed it would create a presumption against a veteran if it does seem to run count the idea that the board is required to weigh the evidence and make the evidence here a determinations based on all of the evidence of record and in this case that is exactly what the board did and found that the veterans medical expert did not have proposed that perhaps where there is a question of which expert which medical opinion is most credentialed another medical expert should be brought in and there should be a determination made specifically about  but i'm saying if you're talking about just objectively on paper the usually it's going to be the veteran that has the more qualified just on paper the that's entirely likely your honor it certainly isn't necessarily always the case and it also raises the question of whether you would be imposing some kind of monetary bar where in order for the better and better and to get those benefit they would need to make sure that they are able to that's absolutely true your honor if we end up getting into a battle of the experts the costs will go up for everyone for all of those reasons the benefit of the doubt will is already sufficiently keeping the veterans interests in any given