determine whether legal requirements of the statute or regulation have been correctly interpreted in a particular context where the relevant facts are not disputed mr caleb does not challenge any of the facts interpretation is within the jurisdiction of a score now the court of appeals for veterans claims incorrectly interpreted that statute because it has but two criteria the sta no difference whether there was or was not at that stage of the proceedings evidence of a medical next and that was an element which which would have to be adjudicated i would apartment a veterans affairs medical records and found that there was no support for that claim there were no medical records saying he injured his knee in service of the force corroboration is required reverence and we can't come in and say i injured my knee and that which is the evidence for a fact that happened well mr smith and i know i'm venturing into the president fact here but normally in most areas in which we deal with the concept of new immaterial evidence something that is known know evidence which the complainant may not have recognised as legally sufficient is merely time doesn't become new merely because the complainant later learns that there is some legal bears the the loss of not bringing that information sooner because he doesn't get in a peck to date or recovering any any sooner than the time he brings forward  board decision and i'm focusing now if you want to have her panics there on page one fourteen in the appendix and the bottom paragraph the board seems to treat the new evidence the evidence that they characterize as new  because the statute provides and the regulations provide that that assertion must be accepted for the purpose of step a stab in the fact of the injury that directly rebuffs the expressed reason for the denial in  seventy they said because there was no evidence that the entry actually occurred under the statute and interviewees implementing regulations this evidence establishes now if the court of appeals were better his client was construed we don't get to the materiality because we find there was no medical nexus our point is medical nexus is not an element of a claim to rio and this case in that respect is very similar to this court's decision and hot but then they was in the context of the coining yet but still owe that to a determination as to whether these could be could be requested in different for different proceedings that that doesn't really saying that the statute says that there's a new it must be reopened where there is new and material evidence and it's very important to remember that once the claim is real but if mr tayl discussing earlier this eighty six board decision and what that board may have considered to be new i was also concerned looking most recent board decision and i'm looking now at page fourteen of the appendix if you have it there of the appendix and by the way will will give you some rebuttal time so you don't have to feel that you're losing your time here with this lengthy question but in ninety five a veteran submitted evidence to reopen his consistent with what i took away from the eighty six boy decision and and to be the board's position is that the new evidence now if that's the predicate on which we are to decide these legal questions then we don't really get into the whole question of the status of the representations and to the comeback based origin of the century do realizing importance of his statement as a veteran of combat simply claiming service connection or a quote knee condition in quote and that's in the records his name but there's not one word in that in either of those documents about the veteran having served in combat and combat is critical because congress has recognized the statute v a has recognized through the regulations that it is the exigent circumstances of combat and don't allow veterans to run to the nearest medic and have their service medical records can be on the battlefield can be examined and have these matters record now the government has an opportunity to re medical next supply which is not part of that you want to wait and the requirements to reopen in grafting that additional element was wrong and the porch of rivers mr smith that would get one last question that  is is precisely that missing piece that is direct seventy service connection why is it necessary for the veteran in this cuba claim to establish that the the ultimate outcome would have been different or is it was a new and material evidence of clay and he contends that they are poor all he needs to show is that it was clear and unmistakable error in the paper to reopen based on new and material evidence whether that evidence would then support a tainting the ultimate outcome is for another dead that's who we disagree with that why is he wrong because he particular issue of whether a piece of evidence constitutes new material it's not this way if the outcome turns on whether if it is and that's a question of whether that needs to be reached and our position is that decision also doesn't need to be reached because in fact the work found the  immaterial evidence or outcome of whether he should get and that simply the term outcomes that are the problem for me at least is the term outcome determined doesn't answer the call that question it leaves us of the year to whether they're talking about the new material evidence question all evidence that is relevant to his regional plan and therefore can't really say that we can pull separate out very cleanly and say that has nothing to do with the original lineup under thirty you see one the dots connecting the current disability with something that was incurred or in were activated by service with early he'd have he'd have to establish a medical nexus to prevail on the ultimate client but what he is what he tried to do in one thousand nine hundred five as i understand it is to present the piece of evidence that in one hundred seventy was found lacking namely the put at the sack words in the in the opinion but a an injury during service that's fair that when you're asking the question of whether given that there was an injury even without raising any question with the weapon that they would injure the can the question is whether there's a nexus between the current disability and the original injury and question go to that medical next question to answer whether or not the issue of whether or not he's actually connected the dots between one hundred seventy in one thousand eighty six does that go to the question of whether or not there was new in material evidence submitted he would have had to show not only some something new but also that it was material to his claim that he would have the a title to some recovery so that it not the that yes i thought i heard a combat related injury but the lead the injuries i'm suffering from now are related to that yes i mean it's noon in serials application was denied or isn't adequate to satisfy new immaterial evidence even if it doesn't answer all of the possible objections to them and by that i mean to the extent service without without being able to show that he actually there was that connection he can't meet the status scuse me can't be the omens of entitle in service service connection is now being granted and of the above conditions so they're saying at that point i take it and correct me if this is not a correct reading they're saying you haven't proved that you injure yourself in of proof of some injury that would be sufficiently grave in that it could conceivably have an effect downstream is now in nineteen i mean isn't that right that's what they're focusing that that takes care of that problem now the question that we're bearing down on here is whether that's enough given that that was the ground on which he would reject it to say well here's a new and material material because it answers to the the point that was the basis for the for the denial of it it wasn't recognized as such is q well well i mean there is matter in the in seventy but it certainly battered in making eighty five because at that time there was this very presumption that if you are injured in combat that enable your way statement then enjoy well he's not he's not a material evidence a claim or to bring him to reopen his claim in one thousand nine hundred five he would have to show new and material evidence not only to build a gap in the missing piece of evidence about his injury and service but also no in material evidence with respect to medical nexus that it not enough for him to submit new immaterial evidence on the one piece of the puzzle without submitting evidence on ninety six that is related to his service fifteen years earlier yes even if that was not the ground on which the board had previously found that  factual basis the government's position which as i understand it is that in order to reopen this client mr caleb had to submit not only know in material evidence of the respect expressed basis on which the yarrow deny the claim of nine hundred seventy but with respect to all entry opportunity and the record were closed at that point then obviously the absence of a medical nexus opinion would be fatal to the client that's not correct when you and material evidence is submitted the medical examination in most cases that particularly includes cases such as this one where there is evidence of an injury in an in service in the present disability but no medical nexus it's because at least in part basis of the denial of my consent and that it has go back to the agency for those proceedings on the remaining evidence for each what would you let me ask you one other question procedurally what would be assuming all that happened it went back to the agency what would be the precise question before the agency at that point would it be what was the state of the evidence in one thousand nine hundred eighty sick or eighty five or would it be what is the state of the evidence now five connected back with him you can't do that over retroactively correct i mean whatever if that we have the proceeding if there were for you to proceeding then it would go to an examination of him in two thousand