please the court mr lawson requests that the court set aside the entire judgment of the veterans court the man the impurity the lawyers change their new rules and regulations bring us up to date on what's my understanding tyler is that the stay is still in place and that the board and the agency are not deciding blue water navy cases as a result of the procopio decision until they develop the guidelines and released i'm not aware of any cases that have been recently decided beyond the veterans court remanding cases to the board to address that issue as should have happened had that been the law at the time of this case when it was at the core of if he doesn't meet the definition of bluewater and does if it was clear that he was in a territorial waters then you're asking him seems to me the question is what happens in this period between the did and certainly because there's been a change in law and because of that old decision in the board two thousand and fifteen i relied on the old law and rd because the facts of this case compel a different decision or a different doctrine in a case where there's been a substantive change in the law and so the only really the only action the court can take at this point is to remain and i don't know this case is affected by the legislation because it was directly affected by  not sure whether or not it is affected by the legislation because it's clearly affected by the decision per copia will both you strive both you and in year in the party sort of supplemental submission that we receive you suggest to remain and and i because we weren't able to agree on remand but i believe it is not legitimately a reasonably disputed that there's a basis for remit here at this point your honor would like to point out that in terms of the joint status report the government has argued that there's not some there's some dispute over the diagnosis of diabetes type two and i just want to point out that there is no medical requirement in fact you can be diagnosed with both diabetes two one type two at the same time so that really is a red herring in this case  as i understand it if if the cases remain and i guess the possibly and would have to hear from the government possibly the three issues were number one territorial waters was where the ship's in an area  could probably pretty easily be determined and then the question of diabetes type two or type one and the question of heart condition those seem to be the three door opening issues to get you into the presumption  right those would be the elements of the presumption and i don't believe i believe the board found as a matter of fact that in two thousand and three there's records in two thousand showing the diagnosis of type two there's also records showing a type one diabetes but if they're not  up exclusive diagnoses you can have both conditions well not have turned this past that diagnosis of type two diabetic diabetes has had no further attention since the initial diabetes it is we believe it's resolved in the record that he has type two and type one diabetes your honor and so i don't know that we would need to address that any further furthermore the board has already decided that issue and two to go back behind a favorable finding of fact i don't that there's any basis in the law to allow the government to do that at the board rd because there was a diagnosis of type two diabetes within the time of the claim and that is sufficient to establish the elements for service connection what happens is that if  the board says it mr lawson testified to that he had that diagnosis i don't think there's any reasonable dispute that he had anything but a diagnosis of type two and type one diabetes the government has also argued that mr l to address the claim of direct so that issues there and even if it wasn't there the board considered it reasonably raised because they address it in the decision so mr lawson meets all the bases for the exception to the law of the case doctrine and as mr court to exercise its discretion considering two factors and the st factor is the factors involving the parties that the government has produced no reason no less a compelling reason why an immediate decision on the constitutional issue before the court on the question of direct exposure requires an immediate decision of the court and put on the other side of that the equities involving mr lawson he's a seventy two year old vietnam veteran who's been fighting since before haas was issued a year before haas was issued was when he filed his  st claim and he's continuously pursued it through the entire twelve year period now that he has an opportunity in light of percoco to resolve that issue of presumptive service connection there's no basis in the equities and in terms of equity mr l claim would even be adjudicated if he did file a supplemental claim at this point because the stay is still in place at this time of leave there was testimony before congress just in the last three weeks about whether or not that state should or should not step place i don't know how this is all turning out i did not ed and the efficiencies would would tend towards it being appropriate for the court now to affirm that piece of the opinion on the presumptive theory but to re mand for consideration of excuse me read to affirm on the direct theory but to remain on the the presumptive theory of service connection and the reason that we think that that's appropriate is because there is a you know a large number of these cases are going to be in flux that the that he is very overcast with that everything about the direct theory has been has been briefed the arguments have been made it's fully briefed before the court and rather than having go back to the that he may or may not meet the requirements for presumptive service connection if he does then the director is a government test that he was on or the problem bob he was a we do not contest that he was on board the hancock weren't and i didn't see anywhere say no they were not within the territorial waters during his tour of duty well st of all remember that everything that was adjudicated below was before do know that that that hancock's record specifically we're midway through being scanned and what i can tell you is that some ships who went to the station went down into denying harbor which would be considered and which would be within the offshore waters as defined by the blue water navy act but not all ships did and so there's a question that needs to be resolved a question of fact that should go back to the v a as to whether or not he was in the waters and if he was you know certainly  affirm on the direct case before us and remain on the presumption question the hole that's been opened up by brick o p o correct yes but my understanding was that the british you're saying that we should dismiss the direct case for lack of assist veterans court said that it was my view is that whether or not there was of compliance with that or do these an application of law the fact that we don't have jurisdiction so what if the situation is that we don't have none presidential case of ours where we have just remitted without a reversal or a vacate we just said remain and and i think it's also contemplated in our operating procedures that the the paths of those ships and so again what we don't know standing here on this record whether or not the hancock or of the other ships that mr lawson served on were it within those boundaries at that will be known  what if you could just tell me a little bit about what this is that's pending the blue water navy act says that the secretary may stay a pending cases until january issue on appeal at this court because he would receive the very records he complains of not receiving in this appeal so even if there's a grant even whatever happens with the court reminding that that issue will go away when seems like the government was saying they have them the years that mr larson was served are lost and served were not in the electronic publicly available yet so we still as of now need to make that request the the other concern i would have that would just point out is well i think that remained is the fastest relief for my client because it allows us to get access to those records individual e m i don't know i know mr parker o b o comes before this court next friday again i'm challenging the state that is being applied to broadly to remind of cases and to new claims so i think there is some confusion from both sides of the bar as to the scope of that stay and certainly remember be the quickest way because it would allow myself our as attorney on remand to to resolve the issue and move the issue frankly before the court this time we ask that the court set aside the